What should you be subjected to in order to fly on airplane?

What a bunch of terminally prudish anal retentives. No wonder Europe got rid of the prissy religious extremists to clear the decks for the enlightenment.

Extremely invasive full-body scans, X-rays, CAT-Scans, and so forth.

Extremely invasive Strip, cavity (including ears, and whatever you can think of) and other searches.

Only allowed to bring clothing, and then only clothing without any materials which could possibly explode, ignite, or otherwise endanger anyone in any conceivable situation, however remote, onboard.

Recommended that you simply travel via air completely naked, and have someone meet you at the other end with clothes. This method eliminates much of the stress involved in multiple undressings, scanning’s, etc.

:mrgreen:

Manc Skipper said:

What a bunch of terminally prudish anal retentives. No wonder Europe got rid of the prissy religious extremists to clear the decks for the enlightenment.

Click to expand...

Don't you live in a country where the government spies on your trash cans to make sure you are a recycling, has security cameras in practically every street corner and bans everything from guns to swords of certian lengths?

Two million households now have spy devices in their bins - Telegraph

eBay.co.uk Guides - New UK Sword Legislation - FAQ

BBC NEWS | UK | Police chief's 'Orwellian' fears

Gun politics in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I think I'll take the prissy religious extremist prudes over a police state any day of the week.

I'm fully in favor of the "Israelification" of our security check points. Our current process is the ultimate experiment in politcal correctness - we should be identifying those who match likely terror profiles and they should be singled out for increased screening.

The Mark said:

Extremely invasive full-body scans, X-rays, CAT-Scans, and so forth.

Extremely invasive Strip, cavity (including ears, and whatever you can think of) and other searches.

Only allowed to bring clothing, and then only clothing without any materials which could possibly explode, ignite, or otherwise endanger anyone in any conceivable situation, however remote, onboard.

Recommended that you simply travel via air completely naked, and have someone meet you at the other end with clothes. This method eliminates much of the stress involved in multiple undressings, scanning’s, etc.

:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Only if she goes naked too.....


And no honey, a little longer

I have to fly 2-3 times a month for work. I doubt that most of the people that are whining about security have to fly as often as I do. I went through the full body scan this morning at 5:30 a.m. at the SFO. After the scan, I received a mild patdown and had my hands rubbed and screened.

I do not believe that the TSA officials have put these measures into place purely to violate your rights and piss you off. They are responding to additional information that has been received about realistic threats.

The issue is no longer that planes will be invaded by box-cutter wielding hijackers bent on fiery immolation into a national landmark.

The issue is now that passengers will bring chemicals and/or other items in an attempt to blow up the plane. The limits on liquids and gels was in response to dry runs by suspected terrorists who were found mixing bottles of chemicals in airplane lavatories. And, stories like this:

Terrorist Attempt on Detroit-Bound Plane Puts Airports on Alert - Bloomberg

As a gold level Delta frequent flier, I don't really give a crap if you don't want to go through security screenings. Drive your own damn car. But, terrorists look like everyone else. And, there are reasons for every single measure that TSA has implemented, from shoe removals (shoe bomber) to limits on liquids/gels. I have no doubt that these new measures are in response to legitimate intelligence information.

We've had multiple attempts at air travel attacks. Most recently, a dozen bombs were shipped on freight planes, disguised as printer ink cartridges. 9/11 never ended. The attempts to test our weaknesses and vulnerabilities continue, aggressively.

Kal'Stang said:

Where in ANY of my posts gives you the slightest impression that I said such a thing? You are the one claiming that you have a right to fly on a plane. I want you to prove it. I gave you a way to prove it. Use it. You are the one that is claiming a right where none exists.



Congress does have that ability. Sure I'd be pissed that they took away my license. But guess what.....people have lived on this world for thousands of years long before the car was invented. How do you think they got around? Ask any cop or judge or lawyer in this whole country and they will ALL tell you that driving is a privledge, not a right.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

While I'm not scholor it is pretty obvious what the Ninth Amendment means. Now, Can you draw up a list of rights that are not in the constitution and yet we are gaurunteed to have because of the 9th Amendment? Just what are those rights? Anything that you say? Or anything the people as a whole say? What are they? I would like the full list please and thank you.

Also answer me this. Since you seem to think that the 9th amendment is the end all be all for law making why is it that we have a congress which has the power to make laws? Surely since you seem to think that the 9th amendment applies to everything that was not talked about in the Constitution (including flying which by the way was never even thought of when the Constitution was first made and therefore could not be considered when making the constitution) you can answer me this.

As I have stated before, every amendment in the Constitution has it's exceptions.

Click to expand...

:doh

I don't have the patience to wade through the stupidity of your posts and teach you this. Reread the Ninth Amendment until you get it, as at the current time, you obviously do not. It's written in plain ****ing English, so hopefully you'll only have to read it a couple of dozen times.

Catz Part Deux said:

I have to fly 2-3 times a month for work. I doubt that most of the people that are whining about security have to fly as often as I do. I went through the full body scan this morning at 5:30 a.m. at the SFO.

Click to expand...

I fly at least twice a month for work and then generally once or twice a year on vacation. I don't have a major problem going through the screening myself but I've stood in line, like you likely have, and seen families who obviously don't travel as much being put through the ringer. Kids wearing Mickey Mouse ears and their Mom's and Dad's are not the ones who are attacking our country. I've watched women being grossly mistreated, in full view of the rest of the line, and I won't submit my family to it.

They are going too far and it needs to be stopped - and this is from a frequent flier who flies United (mostly).

topshelf said:

I fly at least twice a month for work and then generally once or twice a year on vacation. I don't have a major problem going through the screening myself but I've stood in line, like you likely have, and seen families who obviously don't travel as much being put through the ringer. Kids wearing Mickey Mouse ears and their Mom's and Dad's are not the ones who are attacking our country. I've watched women being grossly mistreated, in full view of the rest of the line, and I won't submit my family to it.

They are going too far and it needs to be stopped - and this is from a frequent flier who flies United (mostly).

Click to expand...

:roll: If people can't bother to research the requirements for flying (including what they can, and can't take on the plane), they deserve to be put through the ringer. This **** isn't rocket science, and these protocols exist for a reason.

As far as the kids in Mickey Mouse ears and their parents...TERRORISTS LOOK LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. They have used women and children...blonds and brunettes. You cannot have an effective comprehensive policy to reduce attacks on flights without screening everyone, without preferences.

The only change I would support at this point would be fingerprinting and creating an upper tier of screening for frequent fliers that would allow us to bypass the lines based upon providing the airline with detailed security information. That would free up more personnel to assist the noobs.

As far as not allowing your wife to fly because she might be exposed to unpleasantness at the security checkpoints? Good grief, that's one of the most ridiculous comments I've read in recent memory. I guess if your wife can't handle herself at a TSA checkpoint, she probably does need to stay at home. Preferably, with a full time minder.

Do you have the right to sneak a bomb onto a plane? If you're against various precautionary measures, then you apparently feel you do.

Do I have a right to survive the flight from point A to point B without you blowing it up? I think so.

So, how do we reconcile those 'rights'? Yours to not be searched for explosives and mine not to be killed when your bomb goes off?

Catz Part Deux said:

:roll: If people can't bother to research the requirements for flying (including what they can, and can't take on the plane), they deserve to be put through the ringer. This **** isn't rocket science, and these protocols exist for a reason.

Click to expand...

That's irrelevant - it's a 100% different experience to drag three children through security then it is to go through yourself as an experienced business traveler.

Whovian said:

Do you have the right to sneak a bomb onto a plane? If you're against various precautionary measures, then you apparently feel you do.

Do I have a right to survive the flight from point A to point B without you blowing it up? I think so.

So, how do we reconcile those 'rights'? Yours to not be searched for explosives and mine not to be killed when your bomb goes off?

Click to expand...

Grandma Betty isn't trying to blow us up - again I'm for the Israelification of our security check points. I'm also certain using non-union private contractors would lead to an altogether more pleasant experience.

Catz Part Deux said:

:roll: If people can't bother to research the requirements for flying (including what they can, and can't take on the plane), they deserve to be put through the ringer. This **** isn't rocket science, and these protocols exist for a reason.

Click to expand...

Yes. Apparently, they are in place to inconvenience people who want to bring explosives and such onto my plane, blow it up, killing themselves and me.

Ask me if I give a rats ass if they are inconvenienced.

topshelf said:

Grandma Betty isn't trying to blow us up - again I'm for the Israelification of our security check points. I'm also certain using non-union private contractors would lead to an altogether more pleasant experience.

Click to expand...

YOu believe you can screen based on race, then? Duly noted.

And, using private contractors would simply result in the same kinds of profit maximizing quality controls as the privatized hospitals where their staff shortages lead to all kinds of dangers to patients.

There are zero examples of privatizing these kinds of basic functions leading to higher customer service.

topshelf said:

That's irrelevant - it's a 100% different experience to drag three children through security then it is to go through yourself as an experienced business traveler.

Click to expand...

OH, good grief. I've dragged children through security...repeatedly. My kids are good travelers, and have been since they were about 5. They both started flying within a couple of months of being born.

That security checkpoint I went through at 5:30 a.m.? Went with my son, who was on this business trip with me.

Catz Part Deux said:

YOu believe you can screen based on race, then? Duly noted.

And, using private contractors would simply result in the same kinds of profit maximizing quality controls as the privatized hospitals where their staff shortages lead to all kinds of dangers to patients.

There are zero examples of privatizing these kinds of basic functions leading to higher customer service.

Click to expand...

Nonsense, you can fire a bad contractor - you can not fire the Federal Government.

Whovian said:

Yes. Apparently, they are in place to inconvenience people who want to bring explosives and such onto my plane, blow it up, killing themselves and me.

Ask me if I give a rats ass if they are inconvenienced.

Click to expand...

That's basically how I feel about it, as well. There is zero guarantee that you aren't going to be inconvenienced, as an American. :roll:

Catz Part Deux said:

OH, good grief. I've dragged children through security...repeatedly. My kids are good travelers, and have been since they were about 5. They both started flying within a couple of months of being born.

That security checkpoint I went through at 5:30 a.m.? Went with my son, who was on this business trip with me.

Click to expand...

Anecdotal at best - besides you're talking about the difference between a man-to-man defense (you and your one child) vs a zone defense (mom and three kids).

topshelf said:

Nonsense, you can fire a bad contractor - you can not fire the Federal Government.

Click to expand...

Bullcrap, federal employees are regularly fired. Give me an example of privatization of a security function that has resulted in better customer service.

Do you plan to privatize the FBI next? :lamo:

topshelf said:

Anecdotal at best - besides you're talking about the difference between a man-to-man defense (you and your one child) vs a zone defense (mom and three kids).

Click to expand...

I've traveled with a 1 year old and a 4 year old. Give me an f'ing break. Not all women are as frail and incompetent as you seem to prefer. I managed to successfully travel cross country, on a regular basis, with little kids. My parents lived 1000 miles from us and I saw them a few times a year with the kids.

If a woman, in advance of flying, is too stupid to research the rules about flying, she's too stupid to fly.

Catz Part Deux said:

Bullcrap, federal employees are regularly fired. Give me an example of privatization of a security function that has resulted in better customer service.

Do you plan to privatize the FBI next? :lamo:

Click to expand...

It's not about firing a single screener - it's about a bad system. They are going through this at BZN (Bozeman) right now where they are looking to hire a private security firm because of problems with the TSA methodology.

John Stossel did a report on this recently - that private security firms were cheaper, more efficient and provided better customer service.

Catz Part Deux said:

I've traveled with a 1 year old and a 4 year old. Give me an f'ing break. Not all women are as frail and incompetent as you seem to prefer. I managed to successfully travel cross country, on a regular basis, with little kids. My parents lived 1000 miles from us and I saw them a few times a year with the kids.

If a woman, in advance of flying, is too stupid to research the rules about flying, she's too stupid to fly.

Click to expand...

Do you really think your personal anecdotes and almost f-bombs make a strong argument?

It never fails to amaze me....the people who most likely are the first to claim they are "patriotic" are usually, if not always the ones that have the least respect for our Constitution and the principles that it embraces.

Whovian said:

Do you have the right to sneak a bomb onto a plane? If you're against various precautionary measures, then you apparently feel you do.

Click to expand...

Disingenuous much?

Opposing certain methods of airport security =/= opposing ALL airport security measures, nor does opposing the patdowns as they are conducted now and/or the bopdy scanners mean you support some right for people to carry bombs on board.

Whovian said:

Do I have a right to survive the flight from point A to point B without you blowing it up? I think so.

Click to expand...

Likewise, if you are going to ensure that happens, make sure the methods are not only constitutional, but work. Otherwise don't expect me to bend over blindly.

Whovian said:

So, how do we reconcile those 'rights'? Yours to not be searched for explosives and mine not to be killed when your bomb goes off?

Click to expand...

Again, disingenuous. Nobody is reasonably arguing that they shouldn't be searched at all - they just want to ensure that those searches are as uninvasive as possible. Come to think of it, isn't the administrative law that allows the TSA's searches/checkpoint VERY SPECIFIC about that - the measures they use being reasonably un-intrusive, or something like that?


After reading comments on this issue on CNN, Fox News ,and here, I see a common trend where those in blind support of the TSA as it is can't help but argue only in hyperbole and intellectually bankrupt arguments.


As for the claim about the body scanner's imaging:

How does one REALLY know what they see? Given how the images they release are far from full size/resolution, often pixelated to hell, and altered in some way - contrast, white balance, etc - making it near impossible to tell what is REALLY being seen. That, and anybody with a basic understanding of how computers store/transfer/manipulate data can easily understand how full of sh*t the TSA's claim is in regards to these machines somehow not being able to store/transmit/savew/etc images in any way/shape/form.

topshelf said:

Do you really think your personal anecdotes and almost f-bombs make a strong argument?

Click to expand...

Now you say this, after building your entire argument on personal anectdote? Lulz. Don't be pissy just because your arguments are pale and flabby.