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

spud_meister · Nov 20, 2010

The Baron said:
I guess you decided to over-look that part about my family, babies and grandmothers, huh?

Yet you don't care if someone otehr than you has to go through that.

As has been well discussed in many circles, the monuments would allow the populations of those Muslim nations know that their governments do not agree with the 9/11 attacks and are mournful that the attacks took place.

This is not a new topic by any means.

Why do they have to do that? My country doesn't have a monument, so I guess that means that the government isn't mournful. :roll:

Hey, if you've got a better idea from keeping Muslim terrorist from killing more people with planes then let's hear it. I have no problem making Muslims fly on Muslim only planes.

It makes me wonder how many decent Muslims would give-up ever flying again knowing that were being put at such risk.

By the way, you might want to remember they are still actively trying to kill us…even the multi-cultural, elitist, Muslim sympathizers who take their sides.

How many planes have Muslims used to kill people with since 9/11? That seems to me to say that racial or religious profiling is unnecessary, as the current measures work.
And Americans are actively trying to kill Muslims, so that point seems irrelevant.

topshelf · Nov 20, 2010

spud_meister said:
How many planes have Muslims used to kill people with since 9/11?

At least two that we know of - Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab. Neither were stopped by the TSA - but rather by passengers and crew.

That seems to me to say that racial or religious profiling is unnecessary, as the current measures work.

Except in the cases I just mentioned.

And Americans are actively trying to kill Muslims, so that point seems irrelevant.

Americans are actively trying to kill the Muslims that attacked us on 9/11 but we're not targeting any other Muslim groups.

spud_meister · Nov 20, 2010

topshelf said:
At least two that we know of - Richard Reid and Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab. Neither were stopped by the TSA - but rather by passengers and crew.

One used his shoe and the other his underwear, neither of them tried to kill people with a plane.

Americans are actively trying to kill the Muslims that attacked us on 9/11 but we're not targeting any other Muslim groups.

Al-qaeda attacked you on 9/11, what you're saying is akin to saying WW1 was started by Christians, it's true, but completely irrelevant.

topshelf · Nov 20, 2010

spud_meister said:
One used his shoe and the other his underwear, neither of them tried to kill people with a plane.

They both tried to blow up a plane - that's presumably what the TSA is trying to prevent with these new measures.

We're in Afghanistan because Obama wants us there.

Catz Part Deux · Nov 20, 2010

The Baron said:
I've been watching the news for the last two days and seething with an anger I really don't know what to do with.

Why don't you go for a nice run and contemplate the fact that your rage is misplaced?

When I purchase an airplane ticket I don't give up my civil liberties...they are still my civil liberties and if a man or woman attempts to do something inappropriate, we all have the right to defend ourselves. Sexual battery is still a crime.

I've been through numerous searches at the airport, the last thing they are is sexual. Why don't you put your wife and child in a burka so that they can't be sexually battered by people staring at them, as well.

I have two girls and a wife and cannot imagine them flying right now. The men that put thier hands of them...I would want rip thier arms off and beat them to death with their own bloody stumps.

THis is why your rage is misplaced. Female TSA agents search women & children, not men. :roll:

And the most damnable thing about all of this is we all know--we freakin' know-- who the problem is...Muslims. But let the TSA cop-a-feel off of grandma and toddlers since they are just as likely to blow-up a plane as the guy named Muhammad who laces his shoes with fuses and packed his ass with enough C-4 to blow-up Detroit.

WHat do muslims look like, pray tell? Are any of them blond haired and blue eyed?

After all, we have to be sensitive to those who want to kill us of the rest of the world will think we're insensitive which seems to be the greatest crime of all is this world of multi-cultural crap.

THis isn't about sensitivity. It's about the fact that muslims, contrary to your belief, can look like and/or be caucasians.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the terrorist are winning this war and have the further satisfaction of knowing the While House is occupied by a Muslim sympathizer.

Oh, now we'll really take your opinions seriously. :roll:

It just pisses me off!!!

Poor baby.

d0gbreath · Nov 20, 2010

Kal'Stang said:
Or we can keep the current security measures or expand the security measures to include body scanners and still tell those that try to claim that flying is a right that it is not? Oh wait...that's already happening.

Yes, that's already happening, But in case you didn't notice, many people are becoming fed-up with the current security measures, which is the premise of this thread. I'd like to see a show of hands from the "super security crowd" that fly more than once or twice a year.

Kandahar · Nov 20, 2010

Catz Part Deux said:
It wasn't just one guy. It was these guys...

Islamic extremist guilty of liquid bomb plot to blow up transatlantic jets | Mail Online

Again, we're not allowed to bring liquids on planes now because of ONE PLOT (which never even made it to the airport and wasn't going to use flights originating in this country anyway). The TSA is perpetually securing us against the LAST threat. This will ALWAYS be a losing strategy.

And in any case, these sort of plots are so vanishingly rare that it just isn't worth the hassle anyway. There have been only two terror attempts aboard aircraft in the past 9 years (neither of which were stopped by airport security, and neither of which occurred on a flight originating in the US.) If you want to include this liquid plot which never made it out of the planning phase, wasn't stopped by airport security, and didn't originate in the US either...then that's a total of three terror attempts in the past 9 years. Out of hundreds of millions of flights.

But oh noes, if we don't have nudie booths in the airports than planes will start dropping out of the sky left and right. :roll:

Catz Part Deux said:
Plus several dozen of what were suspected to be dry-runs involving liquids on U.S. flights.

If it's a dry-run then all the security in the world won't stop it, now will it?

Catz Part Deux said:
Apparently, you don't remember Jihad Jane.

JihadJane, an American woman, faces terrorism charges - washingtonpost.com

Or, the women who blew up a Moscow subway station...

Is there a glass ceiling in Islamist terrorist organizations? - By Brian Palmer - Slate Magazine

Or the female suicide bombers in Iraq. Israel, and elsewhere...Female Suicide Bomber Kills 40 In Iraq - CBS News

I didn't ask if there have ever been any women in the history of the world who did something bad. I asked when a woman or child has ever tried to commit an act of terror on an airline. Let's not pretend that terrorists are indistinguishable from everyone else, when this is patently false.

LizardofOz · Nov 20, 2010

This is all bin Laden's fault though people. If we find him, the TSA will once and for all quit doing taint checks for the most evil man in the world. If you know the person out there that has bin laden hidden under there balls please, let us all know.

snbl11225 · Nov 20, 2010

JohnWOlin said:
This is all bin Laden's fault though people. If we find him, the TSA will once and for all quit doing taint checks for the most evil man in the world. If you know the person out there that has bin laden hidden under there balls please, let us all know.

Unfortunately, there will always be someone to go up the chain of command and replace him and utilize the same techniques.

Catz Part Deux · Nov 20, 2010

Mickey Shane said:
Yes, that's already happening, But in case you didn't notice, many people are becoming fed-up with the current security measures, which is the premise of this thread. I'd like to see a show of hands from the "super security crowd" that fly more than once or twice a year.

I flew 61 segments this year, and I'm content with our current level of security. I tend to believe that the biggest whiners are the people who don't fly that often and have difficulties mastering the rituals of passing through security (shoe removal, bottling liquids and gels, etc.).

Catz Part Deux · Nov 20, 2010

Kandahar said:
Again, we're not allowed to bring liquids on planes now because of ONE PLOT (which never even made it to the airport and wasn't going to use flights originating in this country anyway). The TSA is perpetually securing us against the LAST threat. This will ALWAYS be a losing strategy.

This is simply not factual. It was NOT a single incident. Rather, it was a plot that was discovered, using the actual chemicals, as well as several dozen reports, by airline crews, of suspected dry runs.

And in any case, these sort of plots are so vanishingly rare that it just isn't worth the hassle anyway. There have been only two terror attempts aboard aircraft in the past 9 years (neither of which were stopped by airport security, and neither of which occurred on a flight originating in the US.) If you want to include this liquid plot which never made it out of the planning phase, wasn't stopped by airport security, and didn't originate in the US either...then that's a total of three terror attempts in the past 9 years. Out of hundreds of millions of flights.

It would only take ONE successful attack to kill hundreds of people, disrupt our transportation infrastructure (costing billions), and cause significant harm to our economy. These measures have been successful at deterring attacks. And yet, you want to use that as the justification for why they aren't needed. Pretty stupid.

But oh noes, if we don't have nudie booths in the airports than planes will start dropping out of the sky left and right. :roll:

Oh noes! Someone might see your IMAGE!!! How horrifying!!! See? That tactic works the same directed back at you.

I didn't ask if there have ever been any women in the history of the world who did something bad. I asked when a woman or child has ever tried to commit an act of terror on an airline. Let's not pretend that terrorists are indistinguishable from everyone else, when this is patently false.

A woman committed an act of terror in a subway station in Russia. Thus, it is likely that if greater profiling is used, more women will be utilized more often to attack transportation infrastructure as a way of circumventing that profiling. Jihad Jane, for instance, was very active in recruiting "caucasian appearing" muslims for attacks.

Kandahar · Nov 20, 2010

Catz Part Deux said:
This is simply not factual. It was NOT a single incident. Rather, it was a plot that was discovered, using the actual chemicals, as well as several dozen reports, by airline crews, of suspected dry runs.

One incident, regardless of how it was discovered/reported.

Catz Part Deux said:
It would only take ONE successful attack to kill hundreds of people, disrupt our transportation infrastructure (costing billions), and cause significant harm to our economy.

The exact same thing could be achieved through a bomb in the airport security line.

Catz Part Deux said:
These measures have been successful at deterring attacks. And yet, you want to use that as the justification for why they aren't needed. Pretty stupid.

They haven't deterred anything. Deterrence means preventing people from doing something, not creating a minor inconvenience. No one says "I think I'll blow up an airplane today, but it's too hard." A determined terrorist will just find the weakest link in security. It doesn't stop terrorism, it just stops people from hiding bombs in their underwear on airplanes.

Catz Part Deux said:
Oh noes! Someone might see your IMAGE!!! How horrifying!!! See? That tactic works the same directed back at you.

At some point people need to put their foot down and say enough is enough. Security measures have been getting progressively more and more invasive.

Verifying your identity at the airport - OK, seems like a good idea to me.
Metal detectors - Probably useless, but I don't have a problem with them.
Taking your shoes off at the airport - Ridiculous and stupid, but tolerable.
Federal nudie booths and/or groping - No. Over the line. The TSA has gone too far...to fight something that is not that big of a problem in the first place.

Catz Part Deux said:
A woman committed an act of terror in a subway station in Russia. Thus, it is likely that if greater profiling is used, more women will be utilized more often to attack transportation infrastructure as a way of circumventing that profiling. Jihad Jane, for instance, was very active in recruiting "caucasian appearing" muslims for attacks.

You were just arguing that deterring one type of attack is justified even if it merely shifts the risk to other types of attacks, instead of reducing the overall threat of terrorism. Now you're arguing exactly the opposite. :roll:

Catz Part Deux · Nov 20, 2010

Kandahar said:
One incident, regardless of how it was discovered/reported.

Do you need assistance? What part of several dozen did you miss?

The exact same thing could be achieved through a bomb in the airport security line.

And that may well happen.

They haven't deterred anything. Deterrence means preventing people from doing something, not creating a minor inconvenience. No one says "I think I'll blow up an airplane today, but it's too hard." A determined terrorist will just find the weakest link in security. It doesn't stop terrorism, it just stops people from hiding bombs in their underwear on airplanes.

Stopping people from hiding bombs in their underwear is still progress.

At some point people need to put their foot down and say enough is enough. Security measures have been getting progressively more and more invasive.

Somehow, they seem less invasive than being killed by someone's exploding toiletries.

Verifying your identity at the airport - OK, seems like a good idea to me.
Metal detectors - Probably useless, but I don't have a problem with them.
Taking your shoes off at the airport - Ridiculous and stupid, but tolerable.
Federal nudie booths and/or groping - No. Over the line. The TSA has gone too far...to fight something that is not that big of a problem in the first place.

I love how you attempt to call them nudie booths, when in reality, they are magnetic images. Have you been through this sort of screening?

You were just arguing that deterring one type of attack is justified even if it merely shifts the risk to other types of attacks, instead of reducing the overall threat of terrorism. Now you're arguing exactly the opposite. :roll:

It is justified and it has reduced the risk of an attack on a flight. I'm cool with minor inconveniences that promote overall safety on flights. I understand that there are other areas of weakness (ports, crops, electronic) that also need to be addressed. It's not an either/or choice.

RightinNYC · Nov 20, 2010

Catz Part Deux said:
Somehow, they seem less invasive than being killed by someone's exploding toiletries.

And but for this program, would that be a huge problem?

I love how you attempt to call them nudie booths, when in reality, they are magnetic images.

Not sure what you're getting at here. You can still see plenty, including full dongage.

Have you been through this sort of screening?

Not sure how that matters, but yes, I have.

It is justified and it has reduced the risk of an attack on a flight.

By how much? Are you saying that the risk of an attack on a flight is now substantially lower than it was 6 months ago?

I'm cool with minor inconveniences that promote overall safety on flights. I understand that there are other areas of weakness (ports, crops, electronic) that also need to be addressed. It's not an either/or choice.

When it comes to spending government resources (not to mention lost economic productivity), it is an either/or choice.

Kandahar · Nov 20, 2010

Catz Part Deux said:
Do you need assistance? What part of several dozen did you miss?

You said several dozen reports from pilots of dry-runs. I don't really give a damn how many dry-runs or how many different people reported it, it doesn't change the fact that it was a single plot.

Catz Part Deux said:
And that may well happen.

So what's your solution for that? Cavity searches before you can enter the airport at all?

Catz Part Deux said:
Stopping people from hiding bombs in their underwear is still progress.

No, it's not. And I've already explained why and I'm tired of repeating myself.

Catz Part Deux said:
Somehow, they seem less invasive than being killed by someone's exploding toiletries.

Only to irrational people who are actually worried about that kind of **** in the first place. Your odds of being on a plane that's blown up by terrorists are hundreds of millions to one.

Catz Part Deux said:
I love how you attempt to call them nudie booths, when in reality, they are magnetic images. Have you been through this sort of screening?

I've seen the pictures, and it's not hard to understand why people are uncomfortable with them. I have not traveled in the last couple weeks since the nudie booths went into full force, but I will be this week.

Catz Part Deux said:
It is justified and it has reduced the risk of an attack on a flight. I'm cool with minor inconveniences that promote overall safety on flights. I understand that there are other areas of weakness (ports, crops, electronic) that also need to be addressed. It's not an either/or choice.

1. This isn't a minor inconvenience. It is an unreasonable search.
2. This doesn't promote overall safety on flights.
3. Even if it did, it just shifts the danger zone from the airplane to the security line.
4. Terror on the airlines is vanishingly rare anyway.
5. It IS an either/or choice, because taxpayer money is not infinite. The time people are willing to waste on security procedures is not infinite. And the public tolerance for police statism is not infinite. To the extent that we need to focus on conventional terrorism at all (which is an overblown issue altogether), we should be focusing on the weakest links: our ports. Let's worry about that, instead of crawling up every flight passenger's ass with a magnifying glass and wasting a huge amount of time and taxpayer money.

Catz Part Deux · Nov 20, 2010

RightinNYC said:
And but for this program, would that be a huge problem?

It's definitely an area where Al Qaeda has demonstrated a willingness to go, more than once. Did you miss the stories about the dry runs in airplane lavatories reported by airline personnel?

Not sure what you're getting at here. You can still see plenty, including full dongage.

Is this an area of personal insecurity? I certainly don't have a perfect body, but I tend to believe that airport screeners are like gynecologists and proctologists, they get over being titillated by your junk pretty fast.

And, there are reasons for these full body scans: Terrorists Could Use Explosives in Breast Implants to Crash Planes, Experts Warn - FoxNews.com

I know you like Fox. Perhaps you'll actually read this link.

Not sure how that matters, but yes, I have.

Did you feel dirty and exposed?

By how much? Are you saying that the risk of an attack on a flight is now substantially lower than it was 6 months ago?

There are reasons for these screening methods...they are a response to verified intel. When was the last time that liquids/gels were used on a plane? How about a shoe bomb?

Putting these screening methods in place has eliminated these as possible tactics for Al Qaeda.

When it comes to spending government resources (not to mention lost economic productivity), it is an either/or choice.

So is flying, bro. A full body machine is faster/easier/more idiot proof than a metal detector, which isn't going to catch anything that isn't metallic (such as plastic explosives).

Catz Part Deux · Nov 20, 2010

Kandahar said:
You said several dozen reports from pilots of dry-runs. I don't really give a damn how many dry-runs or how many different people reported it, it doesn't change the fact that it was a single plot.

Dozens of dry runs = the possibility of dozens of attacks. This ain't rocket science.

So what's your solution for that? Cavity searches before you can enter the airport at all?

I'm content with the status quo. No need for slippery slope fallacies here. IF new measures are needed, then that can be discussed if/when that occurs.

No, it's not. And I've already explained why and I'm tired of repeating myself.

You can repeat it ad infinitum, the fact remains that you're repeating an opinion. And, it's not a particularly accurate opinion. So, keep saying it, that won't make it truer.

Only to irrational people who are actually worried about that kind of **** in the first place. Your odds of being on a plane that's blown up by terrorists are hundreds of millions to one.

It's not just about being caught on that single plane. I was heavily impacted by 9/11, and I didn't die. We all were. So, your argument is fallacious. You're conspicuously attempting to narrow the argument to one which is more easily defended. Still a fail.

I've seen the pictures, and it's not hard to understand why people are uncomfortable with them. I have not traveled in the last couple weeks since the nudie booths went into full force, but I will be this week.

Much ado about nothing. Don't ever have a mammogram, you'll die of embarrassment.

1. This isn't a minor inconvenience. It is an unreasonable search.
2. This doesn't promote overall safety on flights.
3. Even if it did, it just shifts the danger zone from the airplane to the security line.
4. Terror on the airlines is vanishingly rare anyway.

These are all opinions, not facts. Do you know the difference?

5. It IS an either/or choice, because taxpayer money is not infinite. The time people are willing to waste on security procedures is not infinite. And the public tolerance for police statism is not infinite. To the extent that we need to focus on conventional terrorism at all (which is an overblown issue altogether), we should be focusing on the weakest links: our ports. Let's worry about that, instead of crawling up every flight passenger's ass with a magnifying glass and wasting a huge amount of time and taxpayer money.

Then don't fly. The fewer of you people who fly, the fewer TSA agents we need, and the more we'll all save.

The Baron · Nov 20, 2010

“Yet you don't care if someone otehr than you has to go through that.” - spud_meister

Yes, I am offended that everyone has to be a suspect because everyone at the TSA is such a chicken-sh_ _ and won’t profile terrorists.

“Why do they have to do that? My country doesn't have a monument, so I guess that means that the government isn't mournful.” - spud_meister

Your country was not the origin of the attacks nor do the majority of people in your country believe that 9/11 was an “inside-job”.

“How many planes have Muslims used to kill people with since 9/11? That seems to me to say that racial or religious profiling is unnecessary, as the current measures work.” - spud_meister

Since 9/11? None. How many have tried? I can think of the shoe-bomber and the panty-bomber as two that were caught due more to the vigilance of passengers and not because of any security measures that were in place.

“And Americans are actively trying to kill Muslims, so that point seems irrelevant.” - spud_meister

Actually, Americans “actively” have their hands tied behind their backs on the battlefield due to the rules of engagement forced upon them by the Obama administration so we are not “actively” trying to kill Muslims enough…

…but that’s another debate.

The Baron · Nov 20, 2010

“Why don't you go for a nice run and contemplate the fact that your rage is misplaced?” - Catz Part Deux

My anger is not misplaced. It is right where it belongs.

“Why don't you put your wife and child in a burka so that they can't be sexually battered by people staring at them, as well.” - Catz Part Deux

I would just be happy keeping strangers hands off of them.

“THis is why your rage is misplaced. Female TSA agents search women & children, not men.” - Catz Part Deux

This is why you have no idea what you are talking about.

“WHat do muslims look like, pray tell? Are any of them blond haired and blue eyed?” - Catz Part Deux

I suspect some are. So what? But when the TSA skips over a man born in Yemen named Mohamad with a one-way ticket and searches and elderly woman in the name of “fairness” then the system is broken.

“THis isn't about sensitivity. It's about the fact that muslims, contrary to your belief, can look like and/or be caucasians.” - Catz Part Deux

I get it.

What you don’t get is that profiling looks for terrorists…not olive-skinned individuals with sheets on their heads.

Israel is arguably the best in the world at this (they have to be) and they are not looking for weapons, etc. They profile for terrorists…not Muslims.

“Poor baby.” - Catz Part Deux

At least I’m not poorly informed.

If you had any idea you would be angry, too.

Catz Part Deux · Nov 20, 2010

The Baron said:
Yes, I am offended that everyone has to be a suspect because everyone at the TSA is such a chicken-sh_ _ and won’t profile terrorists.

It has nothing to do with being chicken****ted, and everything to do with the fact that racial profiling has largely been discredited as a law enforcement technique. It doesn't work. Profiling creates huge blind spots that can then be easily exploited. If you'd bothered to do anything other than kneejerk to your own prejudices and fears, you'd realize this.

Since 9/11? None. How many have tried? I can think of the shoe-bomber and the panty-bomber as two that were caught due more to the vigilance of passengers and not because of any security measures that were in place.

The security measures that would have prevented these attacks weren't in place because the threats weren't recognized at that point in time. Now, those security protocols are well-established, and we can assume, since similar strategies haven't taken place since, that they are working.

What that means is that we have a determined foe who will continue to search out holes in our system that they can exploit, like these:

Cargo plane bomb plot: ink cartridge bomb 'timed to blow up over US' - Telegraph

This is no different from any other criminal enterprise. Our tactics have to be flexible and adaptive to respond as new threats are identified.

Actually, Americans “actively” have their hands tied behind their backs on the battlefield due to the rules of engagement forced upon them by the Obama administration so we are not “actively” trying to kill Muslims enough…

…but that’s another debate.

Well, that's because he's a Muslim lover, per you. :roll:

Catz Part Deux · Nov 20, 2010

The Baron said:
My anger is not misplaced. It is right where it belongs.

Except your posts are largely devoid of facts, and full of frothy rants about Obama, the Muslim lover. :roll:

I would just be happy keeping strangers hands off of them.

Patting someone's waistline is just so titillating. :roll:

This is why you have no idea what you are talking about.

From your story...

The woman's attorney, Jerry McLaughlin, said the woman, now a 23-year-old college student, believes TSA employees acted improperly after a female TSA agent pulled off the woman's top during the screening.

"It was kind of a bad situation. They didn't handle it correctly," he said. "One of our major complaints is that even after it occurred, they started making jokes about it."

As I said...a female agent searched her. Should this female agent and others be disciplined, including fired? Yep. Wrongdoing is always possible, I'm fairly certain that people make mistakes all the time, in every field. However, isolated incidents like this do not equal a widespread problem. And at this point, isolated incidents are all you can point to. Do you know how many flights there are daily in the U.S.? 30,000. That equals around 3 million passengers a day. This is one incident out of 900 million airline passenger trips a year.

I suspect some are. So what? But when the TSA skips over a man born in Yemen named Mohamad with a one-way ticket and searches and elderly woman in the name of “fairness” then the system is broken.

So, only Islamic males are suspect? As stated, racial profiling is not an effective law enforcement strategy.

I get it.

What you don’t get is that profiling looks for terrorists…not olive-skinned individuals with sheets on their heads.

What do terrorists look like? You're bitching about the costs and problems associated with our current screening methods, without realizing that El Al only has to screen passengers for 40 planes, TOTAL. We do not have the manpower, or the budget, to screen using the Israeli methods. Our passenger load makes this completely impossible and absurd.

At least I’m not poorly informed.

lulz.

If you had any idea you would be angry, too

I suspect I fly 20 or 30 times as often as you do. When is the last time you set foot on a plane and went through the security screening you're bitching about? For me, it was yesterday, in SFO.

Your inability to use the quote function is inexplicable at this point. Learn to use it.

Kal'Stang · Nov 20, 2010

The Baron said:
“Yet you don't care if someone otehr than you has to go through that.” - spud_meister

Yes, I am offended that everyone has to be a suspect because everyone at the TSA is such a chicken-sh_ _ and won’t profile terrorists.

You do know that profileing based on race is illegal and against the Constitution right?

Catz Part Deux · Nov 20, 2010

Kal'Stang said:
You do know that profileing based on race is illegal and against the Constitution right?

In the Baron's world, the constitution doesn't apply to Arab Americans.

Kal'Stang · Nov 20, 2010

I have another question for the people in this thread.

Who owns the skies above the USA?

topshelf · Nov 20, 2010

Catz Part Deux said:
In the Baron's world, the constitution doesn't apply to Arab Americans.

All the pro-TSA folk, including Pistole himself, seem to be arguing that you surrender your 4th Amendment right against search and seizure when you buy a ticket on an airplane. So which is it - are we surrendering our constitutional rights or not?

If we are - then why not use the method that's going to be most effective ... since people's rights are going to be violated no matter what you do.

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

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

invasive pat downs

Non invasive pat downs.

Subjected to radiation so you and or your children can be virtually stripped searched.

Real strip searches

Cavity search.

walking through a metal detector.

other

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

Member

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

Member

Yellow Dog Democrat

Enemy Combatant

Member

Enemy Combatant

Girthless

Enemy Combatant

Knight in Shining Armor

Knight in Shining Armor

Member