• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

ARealConservative said:
We don’t need to do anything to prevent planes from being missiles. If you recall 9/11, word spread so fast that appeasing terrorists doesn’t help, that passengers on the third plane refused to allow it to happen again. We also allow armed marshals on planes, so you don’t need this sort of draconian solution.

You are just agreeing to slap a bandaid on after the fact. Once they blow up the entrance to the check point, you move the check point. How does that solve anything? They still have some point prior to the check point where we are all herded together because of the natural bottle neck it creates.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't like it and wish to avoid the "bottle neck" that may provide an opportunity for a potential terrorist to cause mass casualty in airport lobbies, DON'T FLY ON COMMERCIAL AIRLINES. Drive your car to your next destination, or travel via bus or rail. Your choice if you don't want to be inconvenienced that much. But stop trying to inject fear where there is none. You guys wanted more airport security after 9/11 and now your whining about it. SHUT UP already and deal with it.

Besides, we got lucky to discover the other hijacked planes. Why? Because the hijackers didn't quite know how to turn off interior PA systems, transponders or the plane's communications system between themselves and air traffic control towers. If it weren't for those misteps, the FAA may not have known what was going on until more damage had been done.

Don't kid yourself, sir. The terrorist could have dealt us a much more significant blow had it NOT been for their mistakes not our own vigilence.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
:doh

Here we go...the Gestapo cometh. Better run and hide or start goose stepping and chanting, "Hail Hitler" loud and proud.

:roll:
Click to expand...

I showed you that clip to show that what the German soldier was saying to the American, is very similar to what you are saying here.....Shhhhhh, it's ok....just take it....shhhhh....


j-mac
 
Objective Voice said:
The terrorist could have dealt us a much more significant blow had it NOT been for their mistakes not our own vigilence.
Click to expand...

And your knowledge of this is gained how? Fact is, that if this were a repub President, and HS sec doing this you'd probably be on the side railing against it. But let it be 'the One' that is okey dokey with it, and so are you.....If you value your rights so little that you would trade them for security, then I am sure that there are plenty of places on this earth where you would be perfectly safe without them.....

j-mac
 
Well, here's a creative approach to the problem (with video): Have Bikini, Will Travel

Thousands of passengers are expected Wednesday at LAX, and one came prepared by leaving little to the imagination and TSA agents with even less to pat down.

"I'm wearing my bikini," Corinne said as she unbuttoned her overcoat outside the terminal to reveal a black two-piece. "It's not that I'm concerned, it's that I feel like the TSA is making travelers feel uncomfortable, and I feel like we can have security measures that don't make people feel uncomfortable.

"Every time I go through security I always say, 'I don't even know why I got dressed this morning.' I end up taking off belts, jewelry and everthing else off anyway."
Click to expand...
The approach would be quite stressful in cold climates, but it should make a good show for the security cameras.
 
Objective Voice said:
Again, you don't like it and wish to avoid the "bottle neck" that may provide an opportunity for a potential terrorist to cause mass casualty in airport lobbies, DON'T FLY ON COMMERCIAL AIRLINES. Drive your car to your next destination, or travel via bus or rail. Your choice if you don't want to be inconvenienced that much. But stop trying to inject fear where there is none. You guys wanted more airport security after 9/11 and now your whining about it. SHUT UP already and deal with it.
Click to expand...

What an ironic reply.

These steps are not making us safer. They are just changing where the danger might be greatest, but the danger society at large faces is not removed, or even minimized in the slightest.

Their purpose is to terrorize, not to blow up a plane. So you shut up already. If you want people fondling your privates, go to public restrooms and ask for it, but leave the rest of us out of it.

After 9/11 I wanted the government to recognize their culpability in 9/11. It was them who wouldn’t allow airlines to have armed pilots on the plane. It was them that said private organizations can’t profile. Instead, they ignored their blame in it and implemented a draconian response to appease simpletons.

Besides, we got lucky to discover the other hijacked planes. Why? Because the hijackers didn't quite know how to turn off interior PA systems, transponders or the plane's communications system between themselves and air traffic control towers. If it weren't for those misteps, the FAA may not have known what was going on until more damage had been done.
Click to expand...

Even if the third plane was successful, we have learned our lesson. The cat is out of the bag. The plane transformed into a missile thing is not happening again. They will find another method of terrorizing us.
 
j-mac said:
I showed you that clip to show that what the German soldier was saying to the American, is very similar to what you are saying here.....Shhhhhh, it's ok....just take it....shhhhh....


j-mac
Click to expand...

Sorry....can't view YouTube clips from work. My apologies if by the above you're saying we agree.
 
ARealConservative said:
What an ironic reply.

These steps are not making us safer. They are just changing where the danger might be greatest, but the danger society at large faces is not removed, or even minimized in the slightest.

Their purpose is to terrorize, not to blow up a plane. So you shut up already. If you want people fondling your privates, go to public restrooms and ask for it, but leave the rest of us out of it.

After 9/11 I wanted the government to recognize their culpability in 9/11. It was them who wouldn’t allow airlines to have armed pilots on the plane. It was them that said private organizations can’t profile. Instead, they ignored their blame in it and implemented a draconian response to appease simpletons.



Even if the third plane was successful, we have learned our lesson. The cat is out of the bag. The plane transformed into a missile thing is not happening again. They will find another method of terrorizing us.
Click to expand...

Here again, in your hyperbol, no one is saying they WANT their private parts to be touched in such an uninvited way. But I AM saying is if society as a whole (or majority rule since we are in a representative republic) wants our government to take steps to protect us from all enemies, foreign AND domestic, we must subject ourselves to alittle inconvenience in order to keep us safe.

Now, if it is proven that the security measures that are in place are not working, that they are unnecessary, I would think such measures would either be revised or terminated. Still, to your comment about "...leave the rest of us out of it..." I say again:

If you don't want your junk touched and you don't wish to be inconvenienced at airport security checkpoints, DON'T FLY COMMERICAL PLANES. It's just that simple. You still have that freedom to choose for yourself which mode of transportation you wish to utilize. If traveling by air is such an inconvenience for you, find another way to get from point A to point B. It's really just that simple.

Now, to the point of national security overall if that's the discussion you wish to have, all of this could be rendered moot if we simply improved our immigration procedures on both sides of the pond and to our north and south. You want real solutions to this terrorist problem from within and abroad, that's the solution! Then none of us would have to worry about our junk being felt-up. But until then...

If you're that inconvenienced, find another mode of transportation.
 
Objective Voice said:
STFU and move through the full body scanners if you don't want to be "felt up!" And if you're embarrased about how your body may appear on the full-body scanner, might I suggest you hit the gym?

GET OVER YOURSELVES, AMERICA! Life in a post-9/11 world has changed. And if that means you'll be inconvenienced for a brief while just to keep your butts safe, then so be it! STOP YOUR WHINING, go through the security procedures intended to keep you safe and board the GD planes already.
Click to expand...

tell it to the chair and senior member of house homeland security
 
j-mac said:
And your knowledge of this is gained how? Fact is, that if this were a repub President, and HS sec doing this you'd probably be on the side railing against it. But let it be 'the One' that is okey dokey with it, and so are you.....If you value your rights so little that you would trade them for security, then I am sure that there are plenty of places on this earth where you would be perfectly safe without them.....

j-mac
Click to expand...

For starters, I've paid close attention this this airport security/national security issue since before 9/11...back in the '80s actually. Again, I'm no export...not by a long shot, but I've observed these such things since being in the military years ago....had to! Security procedures was part of my MOS.

As to my knowledge since leaving the services, I've read quite a few books on the matter of pre- and post-9/11 social/political events, most notable the 9/11 report and currently "Your Government Failed You," by Richard A. Clarke. But one doesn't have to come to this knowledge from reading books on U.S. terrorism. You just have to pay attention to the news, and it was well known (or assumed) that the potential was out there that another plane was hijacked. The FAA was smart enough to ground all air travel before any more damage could be done. To that, we may never know if there was a 5th, 6th, 7th hijacked plane. Frankly, I'm thankful the FAA was able to stop them at plane #4, but that's four planes too many if you ask me.

As to which political party the President would belong to under current circumstances, no, I wouldn't berate the President for trying to protect us regardless of if he were Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Tea Partier. I just want someone in office to do the right thing by the American people. From where I stand, I agree with the initiatives in place. They're long overdue, frankly.

As for my rights, the are very much in tact, thank you very much....atleast to the degree they were corrected by Congress prior to G.W. Bush leaving office. But cell phone surveillance and warrantless search and seizure against "suspected" terrorist is alittle different from refusing to go through an electronic body scanning device knowing full well you're going to be manually screened by airport security. One you have control over, the other you likely do not (depending on the circumstances as to why you're in line to be searched).
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Here again, in your hyperbol, no one is saying they WANT their private parts to be touched in such an uninvited way. But I AM saying is if society as a whole (or majority rule since we are in a representative republic) wants our government to take steps to protect us from all enemies, foreign AND domestic, we must subject ourselves to alittle inconvenience in order to keep us safe.

Now, if it is proven that the security measures that are in place are not working, that they are unnecessary, I would think such measures would either be revised or terminated. Still, to your comment about "...leave the rest of us out of it..." I say again:

If you don't want your junk touched and you don't wish to be inconvenienced at airport security checkpoints, DON'T FLY COMMERICAL PLANES. It's just that simple. You still have that freedom to choose for yourself which mode of transportation you wish to utilize. If traveling by air is such an inconvenience for you, find another way to get from point A to point B. It's really just that simple.

Now, to the point of national security overall if that's the discussion you wish to have, all of this could be rendered moot if we simply improved our immigration procedures on both sides of the pond and to our north and south. You want real solutions to this terrorist problem from within and abroad, that's the solution! Then none of us would have to worry about our junk being felt-up. But until then...

If you're that inconvenienced, find another mode of transportation.
Click to expand...

In addition to finding other modes of transportation, we will continue to use our speech to point out how your attempts at security are an illusion.
 
ARealConservative said:
In addition to finding other modes of transportation, we will continue to use our speech to point out how your attempts at security are an illusion.
Click to expand...

My attempts at security? Funny...I don't recall writing these procedures, but if I did I'd certainly have done some things differently. But airline passengers would still be screened.

BTW, the terror isn't in lobbing an explosive in a crowd at an airport. That would only shut down the airport terminal. The terror is in getting a plane to fall out of the sky...has a much more damaging affect psychologically.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
My attempts at security? Funny...I don't recall writing these procedures, but if I did I'd certainly have done some things differently. But airline passengers would still be screened.

BTW, the terror isn't in lobbing an explosive in a crowd at an airport. That would only shut down the airport terminal. The terror is in getting a plane to fall out of the sky...has a much more damaging affect psychologically.
Click to expand...

I don’t recall gumming up the works at the airport either, but that doesn’t stop you from telling me to STFU for offering an opinion here.
 
Boo Radley said:
Have you looked at what is on the scanner screen? Seriously, you may wnat to see someone if you find that arousing.
Click to expand...

Really? It take less imagination than you think...

(possibly NSFW)

http://info-wars.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/naked-scanner-14457736-quertemplateIdrenderScaledpropertyBildheight349.jpg

That looks pretty clear to me, almost like a photo negative. In fact, I wonder what happens if you invert the colors...?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2010/080110top.jpg

Now, would you be ok with someone having in their possession a picture similar to the one above, only of your wife or child instead? Answer honestly please.
 
ARealConservative said:
I don’t recall gumming up the works at the airport either, but that doesn’t stop you from telling me to STFU for offering an opinion here.
Click to expand...

Nor has it prevented yourself and others from making wild accusations concerning what are reasonable, positive steps to keep our country and airline passengers safe. But as you've stated we all have our opinions and some of us feel very strongly about our views. However, alittle common sense goes a long way. From my perspective, the steps the TSA have taken concerning airport passenger screening are steps in the right direction as evidenced by some travelers who flew on 9/11:

"It was a day at the beach, a box of chocolates," said Greg Hancock, 61, who breezed through security at the Phoenix airport on the way to a vacation in California. He was sent through a body scanner after a golf ball marker set off the metal detector.

His wife, Marti Hancock, 58, said that ever since she was in the air on Sept. 11, 2001, and feared there was a bomb on her plane, she has been fully supportive of stringent security: "If that's what you have to do to keep us safe, that's what you have to do."
Click to expand...

Or this passenger:

In Atlanta, 22-year-old Ashley Humphries was given a pat-down search of her chest and crotch by a female screener after bobby pins in her hair set off a metal detector.

"I can see how it would make someone uncomfortable, but I'm not easily offended, so it really didn't bother me as much," said Humphries, who was traveling with her fiance to spend Thanksgiving with family in Tennessee.
Click to expand...

But some holiday travelers decided it would be better to forego traveling by air to avoid the stress of airline security pat downs:

At least some people said they decided not to fly at all, in part because of the airport screening procedures. At an Amtrak station in Chicago, Pam Edwards said she decided to travel by train from Jackson, Miss., even though it would take 15 hours instead of two.

"With all the things with the TSA, I just decided it might be a little bit easier, stress-wise, to take the train," the 61-year-old retired preschool teacher said as she stepped off the train.

Edwards, who said she suffers from sleep apnea, travels with a machine to ease her breathing. She recalled her last flight and the hassle of being stopped by airport security because of the device.

"I was thinking, I don't know if I want to go through that again," she said.
Click to expand...

You can read more about how airline travel has gone so far for today atleast from this linked MSNBC.com article.

By all accounts, the concerns many people had for this day of air travel atleast have been unfounded. All it takes is a little common sense and advanced planning. Go through the full body scanners - takes approximately 10 seconds. Submit to the pat-downs, takes 4 minutes minimum. I'd say the choice is obvious.
 
theangryamerican said:
Really? It take less imagination than you think...

(possibly NSFW)

http://info-wars.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/naked-scanner-14457736-quertemplateIdrenderScaledpropertyBildheight349.jpg

That looks pretty clear to me, almost like a photo negative. In fact, I wonder what happens if you invert the colors...?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2010/080110top.jpg

Now, would you be ok with someone having in their possession a picture similar to the one above, only of your wife or child instead? Answer honestly please.
Click to expand...

My wife (Bamabrat) just saw the images. I agree with her assessment; if the images from the full-body scan are like the first picture, she'd have no problem with going through the scanner. But if they are as revealling as the second image, she'd be uncomfortable, but we still choose the body scan over being touched.

Me, I'd have no problem either way. But I can see where people wouldn't feel comfortable with the imagry. Still, if it's a choice between being being scanned and being touched, I think most people would choose the scan.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
My wife (Bamabrat) just saw the image of the woman with the concealed gun at her back. Other than the woman's nipples being clearly visible, she said the images looked more like an X-ray w/o the skeleton. No big deal. She had no problem with it.
Click to expand...

How about the second image? Simply because, in an anecdotal situation, someone has no problem with it doesn't make it any less of an invasion of privacy.
 
theangryamerican said:
How about the second image? Simply because, in an anecdotal situation, someone has no problem with it doesn't make it any less of an invasion of privacy.
Click to expand...

See revised post above.

Edit: "...but would still choose the body scan over being touched.

Me, I'd have no problem either way."
 
Last edited:
An Arizona state trooper can stop a Mexican, who doesn't have a driver's license, nor a green card and doesn't speak English and that trooper can't ask if that Mexican is an illegal alien; yet we can force three y/o little girls to get finger ****ed at the airport.

This adminsitration is a ****ing joke!
 
Objective Voice said:
I didn't say the terrorist would get through our defenses no matter what. I said they'll keep looking for ways around our security measures until they find a weakness. It's incumbant on us (our government) to do everything they can to stay one step ahead of the terrorist, if they can.
Click to expand...

And what's your upper limit for that? How much is too much?


Still, I guarentee you that should it be learned that a terrorist under these new airport screening procedures, get past a checkpoint because some TSA screener surcome to the pressures of the day, you and your critics will be screaming FOUL!
Click to expand...

MY criticism will depend on the specific circumstances. Can't speak for anyone else.


As for the Patriot Act, yes! I was against it until it was revised and updated and made into the USA Patriat Act.
Click to expand...

What changed that made the difference for you?
 
Objective Voice said:
My wife (Bamabrat) just saw the images. I agree with her assessment; if the images from the full-body scan are like the first picture, she'd have no problem with going through the scanner. But if they are as revealling as the second image, she'd be uncomfortable, but we still choose the body scan over being touched.

Me, I'd have no problem either way. But I can see where people wouldn't feel comfortable with the imagry. Still, if it's a choice between being being scanned and being touched, I think most people would choose the scan.
Click to expand...
Yes dear. :lol:
 
Objective Voice said:
By all accounts, the concerns many people had for this day of air travel atleast have been unfounded. All it takes is a little common sense and advanced planning. Go through the full body scanners - takes approximately 10 seconds. Submit to the pat-downs, takes 4 minutes minimum. I'd say the choice is obvious.
Click to expand...

Then I wonder why this was happening:

NEWARK — The choice between a "virtual strip search" and a "grope" was strictly academic Wednesday for most holiday travelers flying out of Newark Liberty International Airport.
The majority of Newark’s full-body scanners were idle throughout much of the day, depriving most passengers of the chance to opt out of the controversial screening procedure even if they had wanted to.

Newark airport controversial scanners are barely used on busiest travel day | NJ.com
Click to expand...

New Jersey passengers air travel not as much of a threat?

Or, if you think it was just there you are mistaken. California Independent Voter Network asks:

Reports abound that the Transportation Security Administration deactivated a number of its controversial Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machines throughout the country on Wednesday. Passengers from California's LAX reported that the backscatter X-ray machines were “all roped off.” The phenomenon coincided with National Opt-Out Day, a grassroots-driven protest against naked body scanners and intrusive pat downs at airport security checkpoints.

While it cannot be confirmed how many body scanners were turned off at the California airport, it is clear that wherever the news cameras went, hungrily awaiting a protest scene, the scanners were simply deactivated. This begs the rather serious question: Is the TSA more concerned with its PR image than its duties? What's most perplexing is how government officials can claim that the body scanners are critical to airline safety if on the busiest travel day of the year so many can go unused without incident.

TSA shut down some scanners on National Opt-Out Day | CAIVN
Click to expand...

And rightly so. How is that OV? can you explain?

j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom