I'm travelling right now and my 17 year old daughter was subjected to extra security measures. I've always taken the position that if I have to be inconvenienced in order to be safe than so be it, but there absolutely is a better way:
<object id="wsj_fp" width="512" height="363"><param name="movie" value="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/main.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="flashvars" value="videoGUID=987D025A-145D-42F5-9756-7B43CC7613CE&playerid=1000&plyMediaEnabled=1&configURL=http://wsj.vo.llnwd.net/o28/players/&autoStart=false" base="rtmpt://wsj.fcod.llnwd.net/a1318/o28/video"name="main"></param><embed src="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/main.swf" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"flashVars="videoGUID=987D025A-145D-42F5-9756-7B43CC7613CE&playerid=1000&plyMediaEnabled=1&configURL=http://wsj.vo.llnwd.net/o28/players/&autoStart=false" base="rtmpt://wsj.fcod.llnwd.net/a1318/o28/video" name="main" width="512" height="363" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=…;
watching some of the coverage on this issues I find my beliefs reflected in some statements made on these shows. Basically if alleged terrorists have made it past customs, fbi, cia, and all the other security agencies, is it really realistic to think these security screeners are gonna catch anything? Also isn't this letting the terrorist win? We give up our regular routines and inconvenience ourselves because of their actions? Time to assert ourselves and say.....enough.
I think the BUZZ 98.9 has an answer. Everyone that does not want a pat-down gets to ride in one plane that is mechanically driven. After they sign off of a lawsuit from their family's "IF" something bad happen's.
The ones who will do a pat-down get to ride safely on a good plane with the best pilot's.
Kyle,
Then are you saying give up on pat downs and screening? If so, what do you suggest? It seems the bad guys are winning now with people saying safety is too much trouble.
Only those of us who stand in the way of imposing Sharia Law over the entire globe. The goal is loss of freedom, ultimately. Further, the more we weaken our democracy, the further the ultimate goal of the fanatics advances.
As often attributed to Ben Franklin, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
Seems to me after 9/11 to now we have been pretty secure, so why change things now? As I said if all the agencies and specialists dont catch them up to the poin they are boarding a domestic flight. What makes you think a security person at an airport is going to?
A little to little to late.
Its security theater with tax payers money. Bush was able to grow the government 60% with these useless programs. And shame on Obama for letting it expand.
Kyle,
So your for standing pat? The bad guys continue to look for ways to kill you, but since they haven't got you yet, you're content? Sounds alot like pre-9/11.
John, your assumption is that this intrusion will keep people safe, or at least that the invasion of privacy is justified by an equal or significant likelihood that it will lead to greater safety.
There's no proof of that and the leap of assumption there is something that not even Evel Knievel could jump.
Howard,
I'd say having a gun (handgun or long-gun), if you want one, protects you from people who want to harm you. The old argument of should you have the right to shoot somebody who breaks into your home and threatens to harm you comes to mind.
I think it is a stretch for you to compare securing the safety of people using public transportation, like an airport/airplane to the right to keep a gun in my home.
Howard,
The use of scanners and pat downs is like trying to prove a negative. We will not know if they stop somebody from killing a bunch of people. But I would bet that without them, the odds are real good they would.
You seem to think the risk to people is worth it, I just don't agree.
If you're willing to give up your freedom over your body, how can you argue that should also be allowed to own a gun? Taking away your gun would have as about much benefit to society as this TSA policy.
The TSA's policy is a clear intrusion into personal space for no demonstrateable benefit to society or traveler safety.
It's inconsistent to argue that the government should not be intrusive and then support this TSA policy.
Well John I dont think you take 9/11 as serious as I do.... shown by your casual use of reference to it. I was at a resteraunt 2 doors down from bowery and canal in lower manhattan that day. I was part of the chaos and confusion and having first aid training my first response was to go and help. I walked off that island that day a different human being. We improved our airport security measures after that day, and since then we havent had any major incidents like this, people are aware. So are security agencies, this "extra" is once again our govt going overboard. So yes I do stand on my viewpoint but I myself and airport security before this upgrade were nothing like they were before 9/11 and only someone who hasnt traveled much or is truly ignorant would make such a comparison....
Kyle,
Don't be silly. I take 9/11 very seriously, and that is why I support every effort to protect people using airports. I believe there are people still out there who want to kill us and will look at every weak link in security to kill as many at one time as they can.
Howard,
You can just not fly if you feel that strong about it and I still think your linking airport security to gun ownership is weak.
Howard,
What airport security measure, if any, will you accept before you feel your rights are violated?
John, airport security was fine and working very well prior to the body scans and sexual assault searches.
The link to gun ownership is very strong -- if you arguing that giving up your personal freedom and rights is OK for the TSA to abuse you in the name of security, then it's OK for the government to take away your guns to protect society. How is that weak? It's a direct parallel.
Freedom is freedom. People who are for freedom don't pick and choose which freedoms they will surrender to the government.
Howard is right this is not the freedom i want..To go to and airport and be subject to this is not the right way to do it..We know that the terrorist will more than likely be Middle Eastern males..So why are we wasting time and money on body scans and sexual assault searches on 90% of the people who don't fit that profile..Is it political correctness ..I think it is..We don't want to offend the Middle Eastern type..
I agree, terrorists are usually male. But how many times have we heard of these cowards using women and children to carry out their acts of terror? These people have nothing that even resembles respect for human life. Any one of them, would think nothing of filling their grandmothers purse with plastic explosives, and putting her on a plane headed for the U.S.
Simple: If you want the convenience of flying, this is what you have to do. If you don't want to be scanned or patted down..YOU DON'T GET ON THE PLANE!! Drive to your destination.
Same thing in other countries. Submit to the scan or pat down...if not..YOU DON'T FLY TO THE UNITED STATES!!
John, you keep talking about all these people that want to kill American citizens, what's the reason for that?. I'd say address that and security would not be as big a problem.
The most telling quote is from a well respected General of our military. "We have shot at an amazing number of people, and to my knowledge, none have ever proven to be a threat". Gen Stanley McCrystal
Terry,
You assume that only Muslim extremist are the problem. You also totally ignore that 9/11 was before either of the current wars. While your trying to make them like us, what do you do in the mean time at airports?
Howard,
There have been examples of terrorist bringing explosives onto plans and for the most part it was only good luck that prevented a tragedy.
That means that the measures you like did not work. I also agree the new measures might not have worked either, but that does not mean you don't even try.
You say that the level of intrusion and lose of freedom you already have at the airport is OK, but this is too much intrusion? Why, if you really believe in total freedom, would you even consent to tell the airlines your as much as your name? What business is it of theirs? Why is a metal detector acceptable and not a pat down if freedom and not safety is the issue?
John, to suggest that the reasonable and prudent steps being taken before is in anyway comparable to the over-the-top measures being taken now is just beyond a reasonable comparison.
I've flown thousand and thousands of miles since 9/11 and have felt quite safe. These new measures will not make me feel any safer, only assaulted.
Howard,
So a "reasonable and prudent" amount of a lost freedom is OK. Now it comes to who gets to determine what is a reasonable amount of freedom to lose.
I accept being forced to wear a seat belt, which is a violation of my rights, because I think it is reasonable. I'll either go through the scanner, because I think it is reasonable for air safety, or I'll drive my car (with seat belt).
Odd, you would support the draft, which is taking away almost all of another persons freedom, but then say that same person should not have to go through an airport scanner on his way to involuntary servitude because he has rights.
Howard,
Then you are saying while you want to wear a seat belt, the mandatory seat belt law is wrong. You would also have to say that making it illegal to smoke in public places is wrong. Both laws take away personal freedom in the name of the greater good. In fact, you would have to allow me to buy an assault gun. Since I have a right to bear arms, you have no right to tell me what kind I can have. And why should I have to register them with the government? Where is my privacy?
As for the inconsistency on the draft issue, that's the problem with airport scanners. As with the draft, which I think is a bigger violation of freedom, there is a conflict between the public good and personal freedom.
What I hear you saying is that you're willing to roll over and accept greater and greater government restrictions on personal freedom with hardly a whimper.
Not a position I would expect from a conservative.
The solution is to let Airlines control their security. If Airline-A wants to let passengers carry baseball bats on board and Airline-B wants to cavity search people, then people would have the choice on which to fly. The reason the pat downs have gotten so intrusive is because they want everyone to go through the cancer-machines. That way more TSA's can stand around and collect a check. Frisking people is just too much work.
Howard,
Do you support smoking bans in public places?
Do you support mandatory use of seat belts?
Do you support handgun restrictions?
Did you speak out against any of these?
All are as intrusive on my rights as an airport scanner, or even a metal detector going into the local courthouse.
You support the draft (despite your qualms about it) which puts people into involuntary servitude and exposes them to being killed, but not willing to have them scanned in an airport which might prevent them from being killed. I find inconsistent from anyone.
Sorry John for not getting back to you. I still dont think you seriously take 9/11 for what it was. Do you know what the goal of terrorism is? As I understand it (and I may be wrong) A group is trying to exert it's influence and control upon a Govt, to make it do it's will.... The means to do this is by killing innocent civilians and people of that country then tell those survivors of those victims that if their Govt does what that group wants....it stops. Like blackmail, if you give in you put a target on your back for other groups to do the same. So as I see it we arent the goal fo these terrorists....we are just a stepping stone. Therefore eroding our freedoms and choices is strengthening their goal of becoming an influence to our govt's policies and decsions.
Somewhere it has to stop, we paid for the freedoms we have and had with the blood of civilians and soldiers alike in all of our wars. To give up some of those rights just because of something that might or could happen but hasnt....thats just wrong in my eyes. Its gonna take blood to keep these rights, it might not be a fair thing, or doesnt seem right but realistically thats the way the world works.
Thats my viewpoint, It my right to fly without being subjected to overly invasive searches or groping. I am sure that business people, people with money and clout or even politicians dont have to go thru these. In other words if your important enough or shell out premium dollars you wont be subject to this. When was the last time you heard of an nfl player or senator or state legistslator also being required to do these procedures.
Kyle,
Your wrong again. I do understand 9/11. I do not believe the 9/11 murders want to take my freedom, they want to take my life.
I don't disagree with you on most terrorist movements. But in my opinion, the 9/11 murders are different. To them, you join the jihad or die. And for some reason, they like to attack air travel.
Howard,
Didn't you say you accept "reasonable and prudent" restriction to your freedom? And didn't you say you support forcing people into the military? So how do you support freedom again? This sounds inconsistent to me.
I gave 3 easy examples of restrictions to freedom and asked if you support them. Will you have time today to answer them?
I also admit I will not change your mind on scanners.
Sorry John it appears you have blinders on, first of all you arent given a choice to join Jihad..... And their goal is not to take your life...the goal is to spread their way of life to everyone, to do that they have to destroy the Govts that disagree, and the way to td that is to kill the innocent and civilian until they raise up and rebel against that Govt.
As for your 3 restrictions of freedom....
Smoking ban in public places.....Dubious at best as it pits the rights of smokers to the rights of non-smokers, which common sense says should fall to the non-smokers as the people who smoke make the choice to ignore possible health effects. But I'd also like to point out that you dont see attendants at the entrance of public places searching for smoking materials or sniffing people to see if they smell of smoke and then denying them entrance to said public place.
Mandatory use of seatbelts.... Driving isnt a right its a privelidge, one that can be taken away for violation of the rules established for this priveledge. You sign your license and take a test which verifies that you supposedly read the drivers manual. You can also not use your seatbelt, and pay the fine for not doing so, again a choice. There are no police sitting at your car door or at the end of your driveway enforcing immediate compliance at the cost of you using your car.
Handgun restrictions while inconvenient still arent as restrictive as you make them out to be yet.....unless you have a record of violent offences, or other valid reasons why you shouldnt own one you can fairly easily, the only restrictions being more scruitny for more pivelidge (ie ownership vs license to carry). Now there are laws being considered that would take this beyond a reasonable nature and while I don't pretend to speak for Howard or anyone else but myself, I will speak out against those laws as much as I do this new airport security measures.
John, I'm not going to play tit for tat because the other issues in this context are irrelevant.
The pornographic scans and sexual abuse by the TSA serve no legitimate government purpose other than to harass citizens. They do not greatly enhance airline security and can just as well be thwarted as any other security measure, other than, perhaps, a full body cavity search. Would you support that as "reasonable and prudent," since that's what's coming next, the next time a would-be bomber makes it past this system.
Somebody above said either accept the new security protocol or not fly. It's just as easy to say, accept that some risk goes with flying -- as with any transportation method, including riding in a car -- or don't fly.
At some point, security becomes ridiculous, and we've reached that point.
Kyle,
So, you agree that some restrictions on freedom are, as Howard calls them, "reasonable and prudent". Some restriction you like, some you don't.
For the record, I support and have no problem with the seat belt law. And I don't have a problem with the smoking bans in most places. I find them reasonable and prudent, but I also admit I am taking some body's freedom away who does not agree and smokes.
On guns, I find it inconsistent with my freedom to restrict the type of gun I want, if I have the right to own a gun. Why is one gun "good" and one "bad"?
I object to having to identify myself and sign papers if I want to buy ammo at a store as a violation to my right to privacy. The government already knows if you own a gun, what governmental interest do they have knowing if I am buying ammunition for them?
I think the restriction on a right to carry a pistol, if I have the right to own it, is also a violation of my rights. But many people think that restricting my right is reasonable and prudent.
Just out of curiosity, do you think the draft is a violation of freedom? Or do you think that at times, involuntary servitude in necessary?
It's clear that our view of the intention of the 9/11 murders is not the same.
Its not a matter that some are prudent and some are not.....if you look at my examples, smkoing ban is there but to have it raised to the point that you are patted down or subjected to sniff tests before being allowed into a public place. That is what the airline security is doing right now. If you cant see that then you will never be convinced, but your opinion is yours. Doesnt change facts.
As far as guns go, well you can hide a handgun and it can be brought to use much easier and most cases has much more ammo and lethality to unintended targets. As for signing for ammo, I have never had to do this myself so I'm not sure where you buy from I can go into Wal-Mart and buy .22 ammo to .45 cal ammo without signing.
No like a car a pistol is a tool that can be a weapon as well, some degree of understanding and rules must be verified before granting that privelidge. You dont like the rules....dont apply to carry a gun (just a side note if have a gun permit but not one to carry, but still get caught with one, it mitigates penalties vs just owning and carrying with no permit at all)
If you want to participate in society then you have to accept some regulation and rules, but not blindly or excessive ones. As our society believes that rules are neccesary but the extremes arent.
The rest of your argument is getting off topic, The TSA is overstepping and that is what we are discussing. What if this and what about that arent really relevant.
Kyle,
There's the rub. "You have to accept some regulation and rules". The argument is who gets to decide which are blindly or excessive ones.
The above poll, while with a limited sample, showed that about 63% think scanning is at least a necessary evil. You don't and I do; good enough for me.
No "rub" to accept John.....and the way things like this get decided is how much importance the public in general places on it....50% of the public in any issue is very neutral, the deciding factor is how many speak up against it vs how determined the Govt is to see it through. Look @ prohibition, unpopular law that almost everyone disregarded.... That time the general public overwhelmed the Govt eventually, but look at its legacy that we still deal with today, organized crime got bankrolled while it was in effect and some people got very rich and their families still remain as rich and influential today, but with time that will fade as well.
By the way....interesting number you put out. The facts borne out by the above poll say....
35% think it to invasive
39% think it uncomfortable but necessary
23% doesnt matter either way to them.
Three separate yet distinct factual results so where you interpret 63% thinking it a necessary evil seems like you merging results to your benefit.
But hey I'll split the difference.... lets take the 23% and split it in half.... makes it
46% think it too invasive
50% think it uncomfortable but necessary
Now any politicans out here? If you saw poll numbers like that on an issue who are u gonna side with. Seems to me that of a good part of the 50% that think it necessary but uncomfortable would not be pissed off enough to vote you out if you decided to side with the people thinking it too invasive.
In any case what politician in this day and age can afford to tick off 45% of their constituancy?
I am not making my point very well but this is the raw thoughts and viewpoint I have now. Seems pretty realistic and down to earth to me, what do you other readers think?
I wonder...I would like to see this poll, answered by the friends and families of all that died on 9/11. Better yet, answered by all the victims of 9/11. I'm pretty sure they would consent to stripping naked and dancing through the scanner, if it would bring their loved ones back.
Opinions depend a great deal, on which side of the street you are walking.
Very true Richard, however these security measures werent in place then and as much as we'd like to we cant change the past. The security measures we had in plce up until these new scanners and pat downs would have prevented a 9/11 like incident as they stood. Why the need to be even more invasive....not sure but if the Govt knows something we dont then maybe, but it seems overboard.
I can't wait for someone to set their hair on fire and use it to burn passengers. Then everyone will need to have their head shaved before they get on the plane.
Kyle,
I bet politicians will side with the scanners. If you vote to stop them, and something bad happens, you're done for. If you allow scanners and something happens, at least you get to say to tried to do something to prevent it.
Theres that damned IF statement again John. IF they vote to stop, IF there is something bad that happens... One IF statement is bad enough but it becomes more ridiculous the more you pile them on.
Right now the public is 50% saying it is a necessary evil, meaning they dont like it but they understand, the other 48% is saying its too intrusive and its getting annoying, that is with the policy being enforced for less than a week. I imagine if people who bought tickets then objected to such invasive searches are turned away and get delayed in theur travel plans, that number is gonna go up. Some policies make sense to people until it's implemented on them, then they change their mind right quick....human nature and all.
To me if I had a policy that 50% would accept as a necessary evil and 48% are pissed about, hmmm I might just go back to the adequate policy instead of the extremely safe policy as it would satisfy more than 75% of them in the long run as I dont think anyone could withstand 48% of workforce walking off, or 48% reduction in production, or 48% of revenue being delayed et al.
Its a common sense thing, try a reply that doesn't rely so much on IF.
Sorry Howard for posting a bit much today....car in shop so stuck inside reading postings.... I am usually not this opinionated but these issues were right time, right frame of mind type things ;D
Ron Paul introduces HR 6416, the American Traveler Dignity Act: Always good to know there is one Congressman with his head screwed on straight, Guess who it always is?
I'll throw another opinion in the hat, If one is allowed a "concealed carry handgun permit" (or whatever the correct term is for it) for any reason, why can't they carry it onboard an airplane? I submit that 9-11 might not have happened had a few passengers been armed. Sure, the terrorists could have illegally got guns on board, I think they'd have had a little more trouble getting control though.
Very interesting Howard, it'll take time to see what the truth is as this article indicates. The real question is now.... (here comes the dreaded IF statement) If people vote negatively with their feet, travel plans and pocketbooks, what is the tsa gonna do then. I'm sure the airlines and the airports arent gonna be able to survive if a significant portion of their clientele suddenly disappear.
Especially as this is significantly more invasive and offensive than the new luggage restrictions of 2002
http://cache.gawkerassets.com
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/2010/11/custom_128984616360…
I'm travelling right now and
I'm travelling right now and my 17 year old daughter was subjected to extra security measures. I've always taken the position that if I have to be inconvenienced in order to be safe than so be it, but there absolutely is a better way:
<object id="wsj_fp" width="512" height="363"><param name="movie" value="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/main.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="flashvars" value="videoGUID=987D025A-145D-42F5-9756-7B43CC7613CE&playerid=1000&plyMediaEnabled=1&configURL=http://wsj.vo.llnwd.net/o28/players/&autoStart=false" base="rtmpt://wsj.fcod.llnwd.net/a1318/o28/video"name="main"></param><embed src="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/main.swf" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"flashVars="videoGUID=987D025A-145D-42F5-9756-7B43CC7613CE&playerid=1000&plyMediaEnabled=1&configURL=http://wsj.vo.llnwd.net/o28/players/&autoStart=false" base="rtmpt://wsj.fcod.llnwd.net/a1318/o28/video" name="main" width="512" height="363" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=…;
I feel bad for the screeners
I feel bad for the screeners who have to pat down random strangers
Leaked Full Body
Leaked Full Body Scans
http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans
watching some of the coverage
watching some of the coverage on this issues I find my beliefs reflected in some statements made on these shows. Basically if alleged terrorists have made it past customs, fbi, cia, and all the other security agencies, is it really realistic to think these security screeners are gonna catch anything? Also isn't this letting the terrorist win? We give up our regular routines and inconvenience ourselves because of their actions? Time to assert ourselves and say.....enough.
Kyle, good comment
Kyle, good comment
I think the BUZZ 98.9 has an
I think the BUZZ 98.9 has an answer. Everyone that does not want a pat-down gets to ride in one plane that is mechanically driven. After they sign off of a lawsuit from their family's "IF" something bad happen's.
The ones who will do a pat-down get to ride safely on a good plane with the best pilot's.
Kyle, Then are you saying
Kyle,
Then are you saying give up on pat downs and screening? If so, what do you suggest? It seems the bad guys are winning now with people saying safety is too much trouble.
Or perhaps the terrorist are
Or perhaps the terrorist are winning as the government becomes more and more intrusive.
After all, their goal is to see us lose our freedom.
Howard, I don't really think
Howard,
I don't really think terrorists have a goal of seeing us lose our freedom. There goal is to see us dead.
Only those of us who stand in
Only those of us who stand in the way of imposing Sharia Law over the entire globe. The goal is loss of freedom, ultimately. Further, the more we weaken our democracy, the further the ultimate goal of the fanatics advances.
As often attributed to Ben Franklin, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
Seems to me after 9/11 to now
Seems to me after 9/11 to now we have been pretty secure, so why change things now? As I said if all the agencies and specialists dont catch them up to the poin they are boarding a domestic flight. What makes you think a security person at an airport is going to?
A little to little to late.
Its security theater with tax
Its security theater with tax payers money. Bush was able to grow the government 60% with these useless programs. And shame on Obama for letting it expand.
Kyle, So your for standing
Kyle,
So your for standing pat? The bad guys continue to look for ways to kill you, but since they haven't got you yet, you're content? Sounds alot like pre-9/11.
I thought conservatives were
I thought conservatives were against expanding government intrusion into our lives.
Howard, Keeping people safe
Howard,
Keeping people safe from people who want to kill them is not intrusion.
John, your assumption is that
John, your assumption is that this intrusion will keep people safe, or at least that the invasion of privacy is justified by an equal or significant likelihood that it will lead to greater safety.
There's no proof of that and the leap of assumption there is something that not even Evel Knievel could jump.
I'll also add -- then why do
I'll also add -- then why do conservatives oppose taking away guns from people?
The "Keeping people safe from people who want to kill them is not intrusion" argument applies equally as well to supporting gun control.
Howard, I'd say having a gun
Howard,
I'd say having a gun (handgun or long-gun), if you want one, protects you from people who want to harm you. The old argument of should you have the right to shoot somebody who breaks into your home and threatens to harm you comes to mind.
I think it is a stretch for you to compare securing the safety of people using public transportation, like an airport/airplane to the right to keep a gun in my home.
Howard, The use of scanners
Howard,
The use of scanners and pat downs is like trying to prove a negative. We will not know if they stop somebody from killing a bunch of people. But I would bet that without them, the odds are real good they would.
You seem to think the risk to people is worth it, I just don't agree.
John, If you're willing to
John,
If you're willing to give up your freedom over your body, how can you argue that should also be allowed to own a gun? Taking away your gun would have as about much benefit to society as this TSA policy.
The TSA's policy is a clear intrusion into personal space for no demonstrateable benefit to society or traveler safety.
It's inconsistent to argue that the government should not be intrusive and then support this TSA policy.
I'm not willing to give up my
I'm not willing to give up my rights for any reason.
Well John I dont think you
Well John I dont think you take 9/11 as serious as I do.... shown by your casual use of reference to it. I was at a resteraunt 2 doors down from bowery and canal in lower manhattan that day. I was part of the chaos and confusion and having first aid training my first response was to go and help. I walked off that island that day a different human being. We improved our airport security measures after that day, and since then we havent had any major incidents like this, people are aware. So are security agencies, this "extra" is once again our govt going overboard. So yes I do stand on my viewpoint but I myself and airport security before this upgrade were nothing like they were before 9/11 and only someone who hasnt traveled much or is truly ignorant would make such a comparison....
Kyle, Don't be silly. I take
Kyle,
Don't be silly. I take 9/11 very seriously, and that is why I support every effort to protect people using airports. I believe there are people still out there who want to kill us and will look at every weak link in security to kill as many at one time as they can.
Howard,
You can just not fly if you feel that strong about it and I still think your linking airport security to gun ownership is weak.
Howard,
What airport security measure, if any, will you accept before you feel your rights are violated?
John, airport security was
John, airport security was fine and working very well prior to the body scans and sexual assault searches.
The link to gun ownership is very strong -- if you arguing that giving up your personal freedom and rights is OK for the TSA to abuse you in the name of security, then it's OK for the government to take away your guns to protect society. How is that weak? It's a direct parallel.
Freedom is freedom. People who are for freedom don't pick and choose which freedoms they will surrender to the government.
Howard is right this is not
Howard is right this is not the freedom i want..To go to and airport and be subject to this is not the right way to do it..We know that the terrorist will more than likely be Middle Eastern males..So why are we wasting time and money on body scans and sexual assault searches on 90% of the people who don't fit that profile..Is it political correctness ..I think it is..We don't want to offend the Middle Eastern type..
I agree, terrorists are
I agree, terrorists are usually male. But how many times have we heard of these cowards using women and children to carry out their acts of terror? These people have nothing that even resembles respect for human life. Any one of them, would think nothing of filling their grandmothers purse with plastic explosives, and putting her on a plane headed for the U.S.
Simple: If you want the convenience of flying, this is what you have to do. If you don't want to be scanned or patted down..YOU DON'T GET ON THE PLANE!! Drive to your destination.
Same thing in other countries. Submit to the scan or pat down...if not..YOU DON'T FLY TO THE UNITED STATES!!
John, you keep talking about
John, you keep talking about all these people that want to kill American citizens, what's the reason for that?. I'd say address that and security would not be as big a problem.
The most telling quote is from a well respected General of our military. "We have shot at an amazing number of people, and to my knowledge, none have ever proven to be a threat". Gen Stanley McCrystal
Terry, You assume that only
Terry,
You assume that only Muslim extremist are the problem. You also totally ignore that 9/11 was before either of the current wars. While your trying to make them like us, what do you do in the mean time at airports?
Howard, There have been
Howard,
There have been examples of terrorist bringing explosives onto plans and for the most part it was only good luck that prevented a tragedy.
That means that the measures you like did not work. I also agree the new measures might not have worked either, but that does not mean you don't even try.
You say that the level of intrusion and lose of freedom you already have at the airport is OK, but this is too much intrusion? Why, if you really believe in total freedom, would you even consent to tell the airlines your as much as your name? What business is it of theirs? Why is a metal detector acceptable and not a pat down if freedom and not safety is the issue?
John, to suggest that the
John, to suggest that the reasonable and prudent steps being taken before is in anyway comparable to the over-the-top measures being taken now is just beyond a reasonable comparison.
I've flown thousand and thousands of miles since 9/11 and have felt quite safe. These new measures will not make me feel any safer, only assaulted.
Howard, So a "reasonable and
Howard,
So a "reasonable and prudent" amount of a lost freedom is OK. Now it comes to who gets to determine what is a reasonable amount of freedom to lose.
I accept being forced to wear a seat belt, which is a violation of my rights, because I think it is reasonable. I'll either go through the scanner, because I think it is reasonable for air safety, or I'll drive my car (with seat belt).
Odd, you would support the draft, which is taking away almost all of another persons freedom, but then say that same person should not have to go through an airport scanner on his way to involuntary servitude because he has rights.
John, You're parsing to
John,
You're parsing to defend an undefendedable position.
I wear a seat belt because I believe it's in my own best interest, not because the government tells me to.
And I've previously addressed the inconsistency on the draft issue.
Howard, Then you are saying
Howard,
Then you are saying while you want to wear a seat belt, the mandatory seat belt law is wrong. You would also have to say that making it illegal to smoke in public places is wrong. Both laws take away personal freedom in the name of the greater good. In fact, you would have to allow me to buy an assault gun. Since I have a right to bear arms, you have no right to tell me what kind I can have. And why should I have to register them with the government? Where is my privacy?
As for the inconsistency on the draft issue, that's the problem with airport scanners. As with the draft, which I think is a bigger violation of freedom, there is a conflict between the public good and personal freedom.
John, What I hear you saying
John,
What I hear you saying is that you're willing to roll over and accept greater and greater government restrictions on personal freedom with hardly a whimper.
Not a position I would expect from a conservative.
The solution is to let
The solution is to let Airlines control their security. If Airline-A wants to let passengers carry baseball bats on board and Airline-B wants to cavity search people, then people would have the choice on which to fly. The reason the pat downs have gotten so intrusive is because they want everyone to go through the cancer-machines. That way more TSA's can stand around and collect a check. Frisking people is just too much work.
Howard, Do you support
Howard,
Do you support smoking bans in public places?
Do you support mandatory use of seat belts?
Do you support handgun restrictions?
Did you speak out against any of these?
All are as intrusive on my rights as an airport scanner, or even a metal detector going into the local courthouse.
You support the draft (despite your qualms about it) which puts people into involuntary servitude and exposes them to being killed, but not willing to have them scanned in an airport which might prevent them from being killed. I find inconsistent from anyone.
John, I support freedom. Do
John, I support freedom. Do you?
Sorry John for not getting
Sorry John for not getting back to you. I still dont think you seriously take 9/11 for what it was. Do you know what the goal of terrorism is? As I understand it (and I may be wrong) A group is trying to exert it's influence and control upon a Govt, to make it do it's will.... The means to do this is by killing innocent civilians and people of that country then tell those survivors of those victims that if their Govt does what that group wants....it stops. Like blackmail, if you give in you put a target on your back for other groups to do the same. So as I see it we arent the goal fo these terrorists....we are just a stepping stone. Therefore eroding our freedoms and choices is strengthening their goal of becoming an influence to our govt's policies and decsions.
Somewhere it has to stop, we paid for the freedoms we have and had with the blood of civilians and soldiers alike in all of our wars. To give up some of those rights just because of something that might or could happen but hasnt....thats just wrong in my eyes. Its gonna take blood to keep these rights, it might not be a fair thing, or doesnt seem right but realistically thats the way the world works.
Thats my viewpoint, It my right to fly without being subjected to overly invasive searches or groping. I am sure that business people, people with money and clout or even politicians dont have to go thru these. In other words if your important enough or shell out premium dollars you wont be subject to this. When was the last time you heard of an nfl player or senator or state legistslator also being required to do these procedures.
Kyle, Your wrong again. I do
Kyle,
Your wrong again. I do understand 9/11. I do not believe the 9/11 murders want to take my freedom, they want to take my life.
I don't disagree with you on most terrorist movements. But in my opinion, the 9/11 murders are different. To them, you join the jihad or die. And for some reason, they like to attack air travel.
Howard, Didn't you say you
Howard,
Didn't you say you accept "reasonable and prudent" restriction to your freedom? And didn't you say you support forcing people into the military? So how do you support freedom again? This sounds inconsistent to me.
I gave 3 easy examples of restrictions to freedom and asked if you support them. Will you have time today to answer them?
I also admit I will not change your mind on scanners.
John, I support freedom. Do
John, I support freedom. Do you?
Howard, Yes I do, but I find
Howard,
Yes I do, but I find scanners "reasonable and prudent", as you find other restrictions at the airport.
What about my 3 examples?
Sorry John it appears you
Sorry John it appears you have blinders on, first of all you arent given a choice to join Jihad..... And their goal is not to take your life...the goal is to spread their way of life to everyone, to do that they have to destroy the Govts that disagree, and the way to td that is to kill the innocent and civilian until they raise up and rebel against that Govt.
As for your 3 restrictions of freedom....
Smoking ban in public places.....Dubious at best as it pits the rights of smokers to the rights of non-smokers, which common sense says should fall to the non-smokers as the people who smoke make the choice to ignore possible health effects. But I'd also like to point out that you dont see attendants at the entrance of public places searching for smoking materials or sniffing people to see if they smell of smoke and then denying them entrance to said public place.
Mandatory use of seatbelts.... Driving isnt a right its a privelidge, one that can be taken away for violation of the rules established for this priveledge. You sign your license and take a test which verifies that you supposedly read the drivers manual. You can also not use your seatbelt, and pay the fine for not doing so, again a choice. There are no police sitting at your car door or at the end of your driveway enforcing immediate compliance at the cost of you using your car.
Handgun restrictions while inconvenient still arent as restrictive as you make them out to be yet.....unless you have a record of violent offences, or other valid reasons why you shouldnt own one you can fairly easily, the only restrictions being more scruitny for more pivelidge (ie ownership vs license to carry). Now there are laws being considered that would take this beyond a reasonable nature and while I don't pretend to speak for Howard or anyone else but myself, I will speak out against those laws as much as I do this new airport security measures.
John, I'm not going to play
John, I'm not going to play tit for tat because the other issues in this context are irrelevant.
The pornographic scans and sexual abuse by the TSA serve no legitimate government purpose other than to harass citizens. They do not greatly enhance airline security and can just as well be thwarted as any other security measure, other than, perhaps, a full body cavity search. Would you support that as "reasonable and prudent," since that's what's coming next, the next time a would-be bomber makes it past this system.
Somebody above said either accept the new security protocol or not fly. It's just as easy to say, accept that some risk goes with flying -- as with any transportation method, including riding in a car -- or don't fly.
At some point, security becomes ridiculous, and we've reached that point.
Kyle, So, you agree that some
Kyle,
So, you agree that some restrictions on freedom are, as Howard calls them, "reasonable and prudent". Some restriction you like, some you don't.
For the record, I support and have no problem with the seat belt law. And I don't have a problem with the smoking bans in most places. I find them reasonable and prudent, but I also admit I am taking some body's freedom away who does not agree and smokes.
On guns, I find it inconsistent with my freedom to restrict the type of gun I want, if I have the right to own a gun. Why is one gun "good" and one "bad"?
I object to having to identify myself and sign papers if I want to buy ammo at a store as a violation to my right to privacy. The government already knows if you own a gun, what governmental interest do they have knowing if I am buying ammunition for them?
I think the restriction on a right to carry a pistol, if I have the right to own it, is also a violation of my rights. But many people think that restricting my right is reasonable and prudent.
Just out of curiosity, do you think the draft is a violation of freedom? Or do you think that at times, involuntary servitude in necessary?
It's clear that our view of the intention of the 9/11 murders is not the same.
Howard, It seems to me you
Howard,
It seems to me you were the one who brought other issues into this by trying in gun ownership.
I think we have made our opinions known and probably bored too many others with them.
http://gizmodo.com/5692198/a-
http://gizmodo.com/5692198/a-tsa-success-story
http://www.thestar.com/iphone
http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/world/article/744199---israelificati…
Its not a matter that some
Its not a matter that some are prudent and some are not.....if you look at my examples, smkoing ban is there but to have it raised to the point that you are patted down or subjected to sniff tests before being allowed into a public place. That is what the airline security is doing right now. If you cant see that then you will never be convinced, but your opinion is yours. Doesnt change facts.
As far as guns go, well you can hide a handgun and it can be brought to use much easier and most cases has much more ammo and lethality to unintended targets. As for signing for ammo, I have never had to do this myself so I'm not sure where you buy from I can go into Wal-Mart and buy .22 ammo to .45 cal ammo without signing.
No like a car a pistol is a tool that can be a weapon as well, some degree of understanding and rules must be verified before granting that privelidge. You dont like the rules....dont apply to carry a gun (just a side note if have a gun permit but not one to carry, but still get caught with one, it mitigates penalties vs just owning and carrying with no permit at all)
If you want to participate in society then you have to accept some regulation and rules, but not blindly or excessive ones. As our society believes that rules are neccesary but the extremes arent.
The rest of your argument is getting off topic, The TSA is overstepping and that is what we are discussing. What if this and what about that arent really relevant.
Kyle, There's the rub. "You
Kyle,
There's the rub. "You have to accept some regulation and rules". The argument is who gets to decide which are blindly or excessive ones.
The above poll, while with a limited sample, showed that about 63% think scanning is at least a necessary evil. You don't and I do; good enough for me.
No "rub" to accept
No "rub" to accept John.....and the way things like this get decided is how much importance the public in general places on it....50% of the public in any issue is very neutral, the deciding factor is how many speak up against it vs how determined the Govt is to see it through. Look @ prohibition, unpopular law that almost everyone disregarded.... That time the general public overwhelmed the Govt eventually, but look at its legacy that we still deal with today, organized crime got bankrolled while it was in effect and some people got very rich and their families still remain as rich and influential today, but with time that will fade as well.
By the way....interesting
By the way....interesting number you put out. The facts borne out by the above poll say....
35% think it to invasive
39% think it uncomfortable but necessary
23% doesnt matter either way to them.
Three separate yet distinct factual results so where you interpret 63% thinking it a necessary evil seems like you merging results to your benefit.
But hey I'll split the difference.... lets take the 23% and split it in half.... makes it
46% think it too invasive
50% think it uncomfortable but necessary
Now any politicans out here? If you saw poll numbers like that on an issue who are u gonna side with. Seems to me that of a good part of the 50% that think it necessary but uncomfortable would not be pissed off enough to vote you out if you decided to side with the people thinking it too invasive.
In any case what politician in this day and age can afford to tick off 45% of their constituancy?
I am not making my point very well but this is the raw thoughts and viewpoint I have now. Seems pretty realistic and down to earth to me, what do you other readers think?
I wonder...I would like to
I wonder...I would like to see this poll, answered by the friends and families of all that died on 9/11. Better yet, answered by all the victims of 9/11. I'm pretty sure they would consent to stripping naked and dancing through the scanner, if it would bring their loved ones back.
Opinions depend a great deal, on which side of the street you are walking.
Very true Richard, however
Very true Richard, however these security measures werent in place then and as much as we'd like to we cant change the past. The security measures we had in plce up until these new scanners and pat downs would have prevented a 9/11 like incident as they stood. Why the need to be even more invasive....not sure but if the Govt knows something we dont then maybe, but it seems overboard.
I can't wait for someone to
I can't wait for someone to set their hair on fire and use it to burn passengers. Then everyone will need to have their head shaved before they get on the plane.
Kyle, I bet politicians will
Kyle,
I bet politicians will side with the scanners. If you vote to stop them, and something bad happens, you're done for. If you allow scanners and something happens, at least you get to say to tried to do something to prevent it.
Theres that damned IF
Theres that damned IF statement again John. IF they vote to stop, IF there is something bad that happens... One IF statement is bad enough but it becomes more ridiculous the more you pile them on.
Right now the public is 50% saying it is a necessary evil, meaning they dont like it but they understand, the other 48% is saying its too intrusive and its getting annoying, that is with the policy being enforced for less than a week. I imagine if people who bought tickets then objected to such invasive searches are turned away and get delayed in theur travel plans, that number is gonna go up. Some policies make sense to people until it's implemented on them, then they change their mind right quick....human nature and all.
To me if I had a policy that 50% would accept as a necessary evil and 48% are pissed about, hmmm I might just go back to the adequate policy instead of the extremely safe policy as it would satisfy more than 75% of them in the long run as I dont think anyone could withstand 48% of workforce walking off, or 48% reduction in production, or 48% of revenue being delayed et al.
Its a common sense thing, try a reply that doesn't rely so much on IF.
Sorry Howard for posting a
Sorry Howard for posting a bit much today....car in shop so stuck inside reading postings.... I am usually not this opinionated but these issues were right time, right frame of mind type things ;D
Kyle, there's no limit on the
Kyle, there's no limit on the number of comments you can write.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/bl
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/70061.html
Ron Paul introduces HR 6416, the American Traveler Dignity Act: Always good to know there is one Congressman with his head screwed on straight, Guess who it always is?
I'll throw another opinion in the hat, If one is allowed a "concealed carry handgun permit" (or whatever the correct term is for it) for any reason, why can't they carry it onboard an airplane? I submit that 9-11 might not have happened had a few passengers been armed. Sure, the terrorists could have illegally got guns on board, I think they'd have had a little more trouble getting control though.
http://gizmodo.com/5693455/or
http://gizmodo.com/5693455/orlando-airport-kicks-out-the-tsa
Here's a must read for
Here's <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/the-hidden-costs-of… must read</a> for everyone interested in the TSA issue.
Very interesting Howard,
Very interesting Howard, it'll take time to see what the truth is as this article indicates. The real question is now.... (here comes the dreaded IF statement) If people vote negatively with their feet, travel plans and pocketbooks, what is the tsa gonna do then. I'm sure the airlines and the airports arent gonna be able to survive if a significant portion of their clientele suddenly disappear.
Especially as this is significantly more invasive and offensive than the new luggage restrictions of 2002
For those who are fine with
For those who are fine with this TSA policy, how do you feel about a little boy getting strip searched?
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skkCpnCm7iM]
Hey, TSA supporters, here's
Hey, TSA supporters, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news/">here's another one for you</a>.
Even the TSA's own front-line
Even the TSA's own front-line officers <a href="http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/11/18/tsa-enhanced-pa… the new pat down procedure</a> -- and it's destroying morale.