How the TSA shakes down a fully armed squad

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Counting the sheer numbers of those flying, those that work with the TSA, and law enforcement personel present and comparing these numbers to the complaints will bring it into perspective. The vast majority of Americans are not complaining. The vast majority of Americans understand what we are up against and why we're doing what we're doing. It's the "horror stories" of the relatively few occurances of abuse that are ensuring that this issue gets front page attention.

What an ignorant claim. The vast majority don't fly.

25% have never flown once. 1/3rd of the people have never made a phone call in this world. Now how do we determine survey results?

60% of Americans took some kind of subsidy payment, welfare from the gubment last year and do not complain.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Socialite

That's too bad, MB. I strongly disagree. And that's very easy for you to say, a white woman.

FTR, a child could be just as reasonably strapped with explosives these days as a grown man (or woman). Terrorism has many different faces and skin colors.

First, a room for privacy should be used in the cases of the pat down and scan. Some secondary measures should be evaluated first: if the metal detector went off because of bobby pins, or a boy with a heart transplant who has his tags, that should go into considering what is reasonable to continue the process and search.

I'm totally opposed to universal search procedures. It's unfair, unnecessary and hasn't been proven effective.

I'm opposed to it for ALL Americans with an uncheckered past, no matter what their color. There is absolutely no reason to search people without probable cause. It has nothing to do with me being a "white woman." Don't you think it's a bit presumptuous to assume I think people should be profiled by their color? Color shouldn't matter. Country of origin, citizenship status, travelling habits and criminal record are all good places to start when deciding who needs to be searched/scanned.

There are a lot of people of "color" (speaking mainly of those who look distinctively middle-eastern) who would fly right through such filters with ease because they're American citizens, they have no criminal record, they have no suspicious traveling habits, etc.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm totally opposed to universal search procedures. It's unfair, unnecessary and hasn't been proven effective.

I'm opposed to it for ALL Americans with an uncheckered past, no matter what their color. There is absolutely no reason to search people without probable cause. It has nothing to do with me being a "white woman." Don't you think it's a bit presumptuous to assume I think people should be profiled by their color? Color shouldn't matter. Country of origin, citizenship status, travelling habits and criminal record are all good places to start when deciding who needs to be searched/scanned.

There are a lot of people of "color" (speaking mainly of those who look distinctively middle-eastern) who would fly right through such filters with ease because they're American citizens, they have no criminal record, they have no suspicious traveling habits, etc.

Not if we include "country of origin."

I'm not for carte blanche profiling. I'm in an industry that uses "red flags" and I understand that red flags should only be indicators to take a second look. Usually when we roll out profiling, good American people who aren't white are who is targeted. I'd maybe consider "smart profiling."

As far as universal profiling not working -- where did you read that/view that/get that from?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Not if we include "country of origin."

I'm not for carte blanche profiling. I'm in an industry that uses "red flags" and I understand that red flags should only be indicators to take a second look. Usually when we roll out profiling, good American people who aren't white are who is targeted. I'd maybe consider "smart profiling."

Good American people who are black, hispanic and asian are also out of the target, for the purposes of identifying potential terrorists. This isn't about being white. That's a straw man. It's about being NOT middle eastern and NOT having a criminal record or suspicious travel habits. And even then, if the intelligence is used intelligently a lot of people who *look* middle eastern would also easily clear. Just because a person looks Arab and have parents who are from Egypt doesn't mean that's THEIR country of origin; if they were born in the U.S. then the U.S. is their country of origin. Capiche?

Originally Posted by Socialite

As far as universal profiling not working -- where did you read that/view that/get that from?

I said "universal search procedures"; not "profiling." I haven't seen any real statistical data that shows the new heavier handed tactics are more effective than the ones that have been in place for a few years already. It's too early for them to have been proven effective. And based on the searches of 3-year old kids and old men with urostomy bags, I'd say those are pretty ineffective (idiotic) searches. I read a blog online from a woman whose 18 month old baby was searched (he was removed from his mother and from her eyesight for the search) because his pacifier clip made the alarm go off, but they wouldn't let her remove the clip for the second time through the machine. What? The last time I flew, if you set off the metal detector, they let you REMOVE the offending item and then try again.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Good American people who are black, hispanic and asian are also out of the target, for the purposes of identifying potential terrorists. This isn't about being white. That's a straw man. It's about being NOT middle eastern and NOT having a criminal record or suspicious travel habits. And even then, if the intelligence is used intelligently a lot of people who *look* middle eastern would also easily clear. Just because a person looks Arab and have parents who are from Egypt doesn't mean that's THEIR country of origin; if they were born in the U.S. then the U.S. is their country of origin. Capiche?

Wrong, throughout history, profiling has targeted each of those groups you mentioned. This time it's Middle Eastern. Also, one's criminal record is not known at an airport, so to be sure, we are talking about being more select with good Middle-Eastern Americans. Using intelligence intelligently would definitely be key, and I'd support that. Regarding "Capiche" that was never a question in my mind. Someone could also be born overseas and move here when they were 10 and live here for 40 years. They are still very much an American just like you and I. Capiche?


I said "universal search procedures"; not "profiling." I haven't seen any real statistical data that shows the new heavier handed tactics are more effective than the ones that have been in place for a few years already. It's too early for them to have been proven effective. And based on the searches of 3-year old kids and old men with urostomy bags, I'd say those are pretty ineffective (idiotic) searches. I read a blog online from a woman whose 18 month old baby was searched (he was removed from his mother and from her eyesight for the search) because his pacifier clip made the alarm go off, but they wouldn't let her remove the clip for the second time through the machine. What? The last time I flew, if you set off the metal detector, they let you REMOVE the offending item and then try again.

I'm still looking for evidence though that says universal searching is proven ineffective.

Regarding the current grope-policy, I agree it's not very sensical.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Socialite

I'm still looking for evidence though that says universal searching is proven ineffective.

You need to read my posts a little more carefully. I never said that "universal searching is proven ineffective." I said it hasn't been "proven effective."

Regarding the current grope-policy, I agree it's not very sensical.

I just don't understand why they can't say: either go through the scanner or don't fly.

Why the over-zealous forcible pat-downs-or-a-hefty-fine type thing? It's baffling.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

You need to read my posts a little more carefully. I never said that "universal searching is proven ineffective." I said it hasn't been "proven effective."



I just don't understand why they can't say: either go through the scanner or don't fly.

Why the over-zealous forcible pat-downs-or-a-hefty-fine type thing? It's baffling.

Splitting hairs, I guess. To say something hasn't demonstrated (proven) itself effective, it would naturally need to be demonstrated ineffective or unproven. Otherwise, what claim do we have? We can in the meantime assume it has as much effectiveness as any type of searching methods. I'm not sure how it would be less effective. The pros and cons may look differently, with the TSA example as a primary example.


(BTW, I read your posts when I respond to them... not unlike some posters who post 80 links and go off on rants... many of them I just scan and respond.... they haven't deserved my time to read all that they say yet - the blunt truth.. time is limited isn't it)

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Splitting hairs, I guess. To say something hasn't demonstrated (proven) itself effective, it would naturally need to be demonstrated ineffective or unproven. Otherwise, what claim do we have? We can in the meantime assume it has as much effectiveness as any type of searching methods. I'm not sure how it would be less effective. The pros and cons may look differently, with the TSA example as a primary example.


(BTW, I read your posts when I respond to them... not unlike some posters who post 80 links and go off on rants... many of them I just scan and respond.... they haven't deserved my time to read all that they say yet - the blunt truth.. time is limited isn't it)

You are splitting hairs. And I'm willing to go along for the ride. Saying something hasn't been proven effective is not the same as saying "proven ineffective." One statement requires evidence and the other acknowledges a lack of supportive evidence.

I believe it has been mentioned that the Israeli security measures have been very effective, but I haven't personally researched the data on that. I do know that they use [gasp!] profiling.

Most of my reaction to this has been as a woman and more importantly, a mother. I don't personally want to be intrusively searched OR scanned, and I most certainly don't want my children searched, groped or scanned. The only people who have ever touched me in certain areas are my mother, my doctors and my husband. I'd prefer to keep it that way, and I don't care to have my children's boundaries crossed either. I'm not alone in those feelings, and the sentiment carries more weight when I reflect on my rights as an American, rights I share with people who are myriad of colors.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

You are splitting hairs. And I'm willing to go along for the ride. Saying something hasn't been proven effective is not the same as saying "proven ineffective." One statement requires evidence and the other acknowledges a lack of supportive evidence.

I believe it has been mentioned that the Israeli security measures have been very effective, but I haven't personally researched the data on that. I do know that they use [gasp!] profiling.

Most of my reaction to this has been as a woman and more importantly, a mother. I don't personally want to be intrusively searched OR scanned, and I most certainly don't want my children searched, groped or scanned. The only people who have ever touched me in certain areas are my mother, my doctors and my husband. I'd prefer to keep it that way, and I don't care to have my children's boundaries crossed either. I'm not alone in those feelings, and the sentiment carries more weight when I reflect on my rights as an American, rights I share with people who are myriad of colors.

Saying something hasn't been proven effective indicates you are aware of research to the contrary. No?

As the hair splitting continues.... *could trailer for Dan's site*

[Socialite]

Or I should say "hasn't proven effective" would also mean the person is refuting that there is any research statistics out there that have, in fact, proven the technique effective.