dumbest thing ever is requiring the pilot to go through the same screening as the rest of us. "We have to make sure he won't blow up the plane!!". *******es! He can crash it instead, no weapon needed....
We all have our thoughts on this matter and nobody is going to change anybody else's mind. I dealt professionally with terrorism for years, both here and in Europe. The IRA, Red Brigade, Baader Minholf were different from the Islamic variety of today. I have a feeling that if the searches were stopped and family members of some of the negative posters were blown up, they would then be screaming that searches should have continued. We have two camps here and it will always be two camps, so that is that. Jim
I think the point that is trying to be made is that the current system is not the most efficient and could be improved.
OK then instead of commenting on what is wrong with the present system, let's hear ideas on what kind of system should be put in place. Exactly how would you do it if you were put in charge.....not one word about this system but only what you would implement to protect the traveling public best.
Limit all air travel to white males over the age of 45 and females between the age of 18 and 23 who are a 7+ on the 1-10 scale.
Here ya go.... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joIxWcFO3bY]YouTube - New SNL TSA Commercial Airport Screening Pat Downs Procedures X-Ray[/ame]
That may only work in some cities:arf:. I say search, search all that is needed. Those that don't like being touched can be scanned. Those that like neither can walk:rolleyes5: Mark
I agree. Read "The Horse Soldiers", a book about SF troops sent in right after 9/11 and see what happened with limited body searches. All or nothing. Jim
John Tyner, a California man, became a national sensation when he recorded his encounter during an airport security pat-down. After the exchange, Tyner uploaded the video to the web and shortly after – it went viral. "We can do that out here, but if you touch my junk I am going to have you arrested," Tyner told the airport security official. The US media has had a field day, reporting the pros and cons of body scanning machines and pat-downs in the name of security. But one question they failed to ask is: who is behind the push for the body scanners? As it turns out, former Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, now runs a security and risk management firm and one of his clients is Rapiscan, one of the biggest manufacturers of body scanning machines in the country. While the media continues to interview Chertoff about the value of body scanning machines, they fail to point out that he will benefit financially from the implementation of the machines. "He’s abusing his relationship with the public by pretending to be a public servant and talking about how these body scanners are going to make us safer… He stands to benefit because he's getting paid by the manufacturing companies to go all over the television networks saying that these scanners are the solution to security," said Kate Hanni, the director of Flyersrights.org, a non-profit dedicated to passengers rights. Talk about body scanners became increasingly popular after the failed Christmas Day bombing last year. After that incident, two major contractors with powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC recieved contracts for about $160 million dollars each to build body scanners for airports across the country. One of those contractors was Rapiscan. "Americans should be angry because the $25 million in stimulus funds that were used to order the first 150 of these body scanners could have been used to create jobs. The taxpayers could have avoided what’s akin to martial law being implemented in the airport," Hanni said. From RT
Priceless and not surprising, but Nathan why should I as an American give a rat's arse what RT thinks? Lol
The quotes are from the US based FlyersRights.ORG - Largest Non-Profit Airline Consumer Organization The point is that this just another case of former officials using their connections to enrich themselves with disregard to the greater population. I really do wish I had a better way to handle this. I am all for offering solutions when pointing out problems but this one is so far beyond my knowledge that I can't offer anything meaningful. I used to enjoy flying, but between being packing in can like a sardine and what I view as overly intrusive invasions of my privacy I've not flown in years. It was a few years back that I sent in my frequent flyer cards back to the airlines with an explanation of why.
One of the easiest ways to improve airport security is to consider who is doing the security. Security, by its very nature, is long hours, odd hours, often boring and low pay. If individuals were hired who know their job well, have learned to recognize a possible questionable person or something that does not seem right vs. the normal, every day, tired, traveler, it would make a difference. They would have the ability to pass someone through with routine checking or require the full deal. Trained officers can often spot what may be missed by a machine, simply by watching and talking to the person. Machines can be fooled, but people looking "not just right" will be noticed by a trained person. Other countries use this very method. Problem is these type officers expect to be paid for their learned skills. Five skilled officers would be more effective that five body scanners, IMHO, but it isn't going to happen. Jim
Like that, better trained and experienced personnel in law enforcement sounds good. Maybe retired FBI and police could play a roll? One Andy is worth 10 Barney's. I think stopping a potential terrorist before they ever get to the airport is paramount. Maybe change the laws to where any terrorist be it foreign or domestic, religious or fanatic be defined as an enemy combatant so that the intelligence gleaned from and the prosecution of said individuals could be swift and severe.
There actually are programs to address the second comment Mark, but they run into problems from the Civil Liberty types and are not a effective as they could be. In Germany the Customs Investigators can search any place, person or thing they wish with no warrant required and citizens do not complain. Could you see that happening here? Jim
Exactly why the definition of terrorist should be better defined and once someone is identified as a possible terrorist they should be considered an enemy combatant and treated as such. While we by the Constitution have the right to demonstrate, it does not give us the right to assualt others under that pretense. If your pissed at the IRS and you blow up or go on a shooting rampage against them then you are a terrorist, same would hold true for someone assaulting an abortion clinic. These are just examples but when you use violence to advance your cause then by definition you are a terrorist and should be treated as such. This would take much of the salt out of the civil liberty's folks case, because all terrorist would be treated the same.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQTz1bccL4]YouTube - Young Boy strip searched by TSA (Original w/ Full Story Description)[/ame] If you watch this video on youtube, you can read the description from the camera man. 4th Amendment doesn't apply in Airports apparently.
Carlin on Airport Security(Language NSFW) Language, NSFW [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G6URhJTvVg]YouTube - George Carlin - Airport Security and Terrorists[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KucnZVKZfKQ]YouTube - Roxi Copland- I'll be groped for Christmas (TSA Edition)[/ame]
Saw a Guy on the news this morning that just might have the answer. Said he took it to the government awhile back but had not heard anything back. His solution is a computer patch I guess that distorts the physical image seen by the agents. Sort of like how those mirrors at the fun houses make you look funny. He showed the difference in an image before and after, your physical features (your junk) could not be made out but all objects on you were discernible. He said it would be very cheap to update the machines with this feature.... No invasion of privacy, would make things move quicker with far fewer pat Downs as it would seem that few folks would object to a Casperish image of themselves seen.....