PDA

View Full Version : Woman Misses Flight In Debate Over Breast Milk And Airport Security Measures



NJCardFan
11-29-2010, 03:18 PM
This woman was made to wait nearly 45 minutes and made to miss her flight from Phoenix to LA because she didn't want her breast milk x-rayed and according to TSA's own guidelines, it doesn't have to be yet these TSA agents were gunning for her because this isn't the first time she's had to deal with this issue in this airport. She even brought a copy of TSA guidelines with her but they still treated her as a hostile passenger. Here is the video that she was able to obtain from the TSA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XhnZlmLGK8&feature=player_embedded

This is only going to get worse. Especially if the TSA unionizes.

Rockntractor
11-29-2010, 03:25 PM
The Obama administration realizes that flying should be done only by elite progressive politicians, college professors etc. The proletariat needs to drive the little electric cars with the 50 mile range, this inconvenience is for our own good to deter flying and save the planet for future generations of snail darters and other endangered species.

linda22003
11-29-2010, 03:54 PM
At 4:10 she's described as "terrified and in tears", but she just looks sort of bored at that point in the video. Eeeeeeverybody's special, I guess.

NJCardFan
11-29-2010, 05:30 PM
At 4:10 she's described as "terrified and in tears", but she just looks sort of bored at that point in the video. Eeeeeeverybody's special, I guess.

Wow, you have better eyesight than I. I can't see her expression. And I guess you approve of what the TSA is doing here?

linda22003
11-29-2010, 05:35 PM
We're taking the word of the narrative as to what's happening here. There's no sound. I want to be safe in flight, and that's the bottom line. If she's worried about her breast milk maybe she should actually stay home and nurse.

Rockntractor
11-29-2010, 05:56 PM
Wow, you have better eyesight than I. I can't see her expression. And I guess you approve of what the TSA is doing here?

there is absolutely no chance anywhere that Linda will get a thorough pat down and she feels a bit slighted!:(

PoliCon
11-29-2010, 06:17 PM
The lesson here being - if you're going to be a difficult passanger - make sure you get to the airport in plenty of time so you don't miss your flight.

Rockntractor
11-29-2010, 06:41 PM
The lesson here being - if you're going to be a difficult passanger - make sure you get to the airport in plenty of time so you don't miss your flight.

Or, if the agents get shitty keep it in your titty!

PoliCon
11-29-2010, 06:42 PM
Or, if the agents get shitty keep it in your titty!

that also works. :cool:

NJCardFan
11-29-2010, 06:43 PM
We're taking the word of the narrative as to what's happening here. There's no sound. I want to be safe in flight, and that's the bottom line. If she's worried about her breast milk maybe she should actually stay home and nurse.

So you're willing to forgo your Constitutional rights in favor of this bullshit? Remember what Ben Franklin said about trading liberty for security. And do you honestly believe that this bullshit is working? Nuns, old ladies, toddlers, young children, and breast milk are getting this kind of scrutiny while women in burkas just skate through? You can be OK with that. I refuse to.

linda22003
11-29-2010, 06:43 PM
there is absolutely no chance anywhere that Linda will get a thorough pat down and she feels a bit slighted!:(

I had a rather thorough one coming home from Paris last time, in fact. So did the woman ahead of me, who was in a long dress and a hijab.

Rockntractor
11-29-2010, 06:44 PM
I had a rather thorough one coming home from Paris last time, in fact. So did the woman ahead of me, who was in a long dress and a hijab.

Did you have a cigarette after?:D

linda22003
11-29-2010, 06:45 PM
Did you have a cigarette after?:D

No. I got on a plane and flew home without any incident.

Rockntractor
11-29-2010, 06:47 PM
So you're willing to forgo your Constitutional rights in favor of this bullshit? Remember what Ben Franklin said about trading liberty for security. And do you honestly believe that this bullshit is working? Nuns, old ladies, toddlers, young children, and breast milk are getting this kind of scrutiny while women in burkas just skate through? You can be OK with that. I refuse to.

It must be working, not a single toddler has hijacked a plane since they started this!:rolleyes:

Jumpy
11-29-2010, 09:02 PM
That is too bad... when I was nursing, this would not have been a concern. I had plenty of breast milk... in my breasts. Really, the woman could buy formula at her destination if she was not able to nurse at the destination, and mommy would have not been inconvenienced.

Rockntractor
11-29-2010, 09:09 PM
That is too bad... when I was nursing, this would not have been a concern. I had plenty of breast milk... in my breasts. Really, the woman could buy formula at her destination if she was not able to nurse at the destination, and mommy would have not been inconvenienced.

I like boobs!:)

Jumpy
11-29-2010, 09:15 PM
I like boobs!:)

:rolleyes: of course you do. :p

AmPat
11-29-2010, 09:21 PM
:rolleyes: of course you do. :p

He's got 12 of them.

NJCardFan
11-30-2010, 01:22 AM
That is too bad... when I was nursing, this would not have been a concern. I had plenty of breast milk... in my breasts. Really, the woman could buy formula at her destination if she was not able to nurse at the destination, and mommy would have not been inconvenienced.

I don't think that's quite the point. Why should we have adjust our freedoms for the TSA not to mention that breast milk isn't a banned substance on airplanes.

Rockntractor
11-30-2010, 01:29 AM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/funny-baby.gif?t=1291098551

Odysseus
11-30-2010, 10:49 AM
I don't think that's quite the point. Why should we have adjust our freedoms for the TSA not to mention that breast milk isn't a banned substance on airplanes.

Exactly. Not to mention detaining her past her departure time. The fact that she had filed a complaint against TSA previously makes their conduct even more suspect.

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 11:51 AM
I don't think that's quite the point. Why should we have adjust our freedoms for the TSA not to mention that breast milk isn't a banned substance on airplanes.

What freedoms are you adjusting?

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 11:54 AM
Exactly. Not to mention detaining her past her departure time. The fact that she had filed a complaint against TSA previously makes their conduct even more suspect.

IMO it makes her conduct suspect as well. She's clearly pushing an agenda. And last time I checked we were advised to have at least an hour for passing through security. She already made issue out of this once so she should 1 - have been better prepared to make her points and done it respectfully - and 2 - allowed more time for this to play out.

linda22003
11-30-2010, 11:57 AM
That's pretty much what I think. We have a video that has narrative which is all we have to go on. I assume it was put together by one of these groups who wanted to clog up the security system at Thanksgiving and who suffered an Epic Fail.

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 12:00 PM
That's pretty much what I think. We have a video that has narrative which is all we have to go on. I assume it was put together by one of these groups who wanted to clog up the security system at Thanksgiving and who suffered an Epic Fail.

Right - and her body language does not match up with what they are claiming is going on.

linda22003
11-30-2010, 12:17 PM
Right - and her body language does not match up with what they are claiming is going on.

When the video says she's "terrified and in tears" she looks nothing of the kind. I have no idea what's really going on here, but there's an agenda that's being addressed.

Odysseus
11-30-2010, 12:32 PM
IMO it makes her conduct suspect as well. She's clearly pushing an agenda. And last time I checked we were advised to have at least an hour for passing through security. She already made issue out of this once so she should 1 - have been better prepared to make her points and done it respectfully - and 2 - allowed more time for this to play out.

Agreed, but keep in mind that Napolitano has made it a point to single out dissenters before, and has given TSA guidance as to how she wants those who oppose the new procedures handled, and it's not exactly open and above board:


DHS & TSA: making a list, checking it twice
Comment on this article at Canada Free Press

By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

23 November 2010: Following the publication of my article titled “Gate Rape of America,” I was contacted by a source within the DHS who is troubled by the terminology and content of an internal memo reportedly issued yesterday at the hand of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Indeed, both the terminology and content contained in the document are troubling. The dissemination of the document itself is restricted by virtue of its classification, which prohibits any manner of public release. While the document cannot be posted or published, the more salient points are revealed here.

The memo, which actually takes the form of an administrative directive, appears to be the product of undated but recent high level meetings between Napolitano, John Pistole, head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),and one or more of Obama’s national security advisers. This document officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as “domestic extremists.”

The introductory paragraph of the multipage document states that it is issued “in response to the growing public backlash against enhanced TSA security screening procedures and the agents conducting the screening process.” Implicit within the same section is that the recently enhanced security screening procedures implemented at U.S. airports, and the measures to be taken in response to the negative public backlash as detailed [in this directive], have the full support of the President. In other words, Obama not only endorses the enhanced security screening, but the measures outlined in this directive to be taken in response to public objections.

The terminology contained within the reported memo is indeed troubling. It labels any person who “interferes” with TSA airport security screening procedure protocol and operations by actively objecting to the established screening process, “including but not limited to the anticipated national opt-out day” as a “domestic extremist.” The label is then broadened to include “any person, group or alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.

For individuals who engaged in such activity at screening points, it instructs TSA operations to obtain the identities of those individuals and other applicable information and submit the same electronically to the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, the Extremism and Radicalization branch of the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (IA) division of the Department of Homeland Security.

For “any person, group or domestic alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel “disruptions” at U.S. airports (as defined above) in response to the enhanced security procedures, the [applicable DHS administrative branch] is instructed to identify and collect information about the persons or entities, and submit such information in the manner outlined [within this directive].

It would appear that the Department of Homeland Security is not only prepared to enforce the enhanced security procedures at airports, but is involved in gathering intelligence about those who don’t. They’re making a list and most certainly will be checking it twice. Meanwhile, legitimate threats to our air travel security (and they DO exist) seem taking a back seat to the larger threat of the multitude of non-criminal American citizens who object to having their Constitutional rights violated.

As I have written before, it has nothing to do with security and everything to do with control.



In other words, TSA and DHS are storing data on those who object to, or file complaints about, these procedures. The potential for misuse of this data is obvious.

NJCardFan
11-30-2010, 12:36 PM
What freedoms are you adjusting?

I take it you did not read the 4th Amendment that I posted. As for her filing a complaint, so what you're saying is that the TSA behavior was retaliatory? And you find this acceptable?

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 12:55 PM
I take it you did not read the 4th Amendment that I posted. As for her filing a complaint, so what you're saying is that the TSA behavior was retaliatory? And you find this acceptable?

How are you being subjected to an "unreasonable search or seizure"? I assume that that is the part you feel is being violated . . . .

I have see no evidence of any retaliatory actions. All we have is her word for that being the case and since - as has already been pointed out - her body language does not match what is being about her words and actions - I am not inclined to believe this to be the case. FURTHERMORE - I'm old school in that I want 2 or more agreeing witnesses before I convict anyone.

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 12:57 PM
Agreed, but keep in mind that Napolitano has made it a point to single out dissenters before, and has given TSA guidance as to how she wants those who oppose the new procedures handled, and it's not exactly open and above board:



In other words, TSA and DHS are storing data on those who object to, or file complaints about, these procedures. The potential for misuse of this data is obvious.

And this proves that she was being harassed? Or that she is justified? Or that the screening measures are abusive? I agree that collecting data on people who object is wrong - but that does not make the screenings wrong.

NJCardFan
11-30-2010, 02:57 PM
How are you being subjected to an "unreasonable search or seizure"? I assume that that is the part you feel is being violated . . . .

I have see no evidence of any retaliatory actions. All we have is her word for that being the case and since - as has already been pointed out - her body language does not match what is being about her words and actions - I am not inclined to believe this to be the case. FURTHERMORE - I'm old school in that I want 2 or more agreeing witnesses before I convict anyone.

*sigh* Looks like I have to post it again and explain it to you:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

OK, here it is again. Now, how is pulling me out of a security line for further scrutiny reasonable? Also, per the amendment, if I am pulled aside, #1, there has to be probable cause. Being passenger #12 or whatever number they decide is not probable cause. And #2, I have to be told where exactly I'm being searched. But as I said, in order to do this, probable cause has to have been established. If I couldn't clear the metal detector, that's one thing but being pulled at random is not probable cause. If I cleared the metal detector and my belonging cleared the x-ray machine, there is no reason for further scrutiny. This is so plain and simple that it's scary. As I said before, purchasing an airline ticket in no way causes you to forfeit any of your rights. But let me expound on this a little more.

I am a sworn law enforcement officer. You may not think(and by you I'm being general) corrections is real law enforcement in the street police sense but according to my training and the oath I took when I took the job, and my certification, I am a full fledged law enforcement officer. That said, I just can't randomly grab people off the street and start patting them down. Neither can any cop on the street. In order to affect a search, we have to establish probable cause. There have been many cases that have been dismissed based on making this mistake. So, John Q. TSA Agent has to establish probable cause in order to pat me down and as I said, just being guy in line #5 or whatever doesn't count as probable cause.

As for this particular case. The cop who talks to her apparently told her that these TSA agents knew of her past complaints and if that is indeed true, making her stand in that little area for 45 minutes is not only absurd but it is indeed retaliatory. Regardless, the issue of the breast milk is a cut and dried one especially considering that she had TSA guidelines outlining that breast milk isn't subject to x-ray. In fact, these TSA agents are violating their own policy here. So, you can be OK with that, I refuse to be.

hampshirebrit
11-30-2010, 03:34 PM
And this proves that she was being harassed?

All I could see in the vid was an incredibly overweight TSA officer (gender indeterminate) doing very, very little while the female passenger was in the glassed off special inspection area, for 10 minutes or more.

This is passive retaliation, or looks a hell of a lot like it to me.

I see a lot of this attitude in the UK, as I fly from LHR quite often for work. To be fair, you don't always get a bad security crew, and some of them are fine, but you can generally tell how it's going to be from how loud they're shouting at people and THEIR body language. Problem is, by then you're committed to deal with what you get.

Our lot is run by BAA (private airport facilities, not government) at all the main UK hubs. The American version (nanny state) sounds and looks like a nightmare.

Odysseus
11-30-2010, 04:11 PM
And this proves that she was being harassed? Or that she is justified? Or that the screening measures are abusive? I agree that collecting data on people who object is wrong - but that does not make the screenings wrong.

The screenings are wrong because they are not only ineffective, they are actually making us less safe. As I stated elsewhere, there are four major reasons that these procedures will fail:


Misdirection: A TSA agent who is patting down a screaming toddler is too busy to observe the crowd that is lined up, and will miss behavioral cues that indicate terrorists. That is what is known as misdirection. Focusing resources away from the threat means that the threat has greater freedom to act.
Restriction of Friendly Movement and Creation of New Areas of Vulnerability: The longer lines create chokepoints which line people up outside of the secure areas of the airport, creating a target rich environment for terrorists. Instead of having to pass security in order to detonate his device on a plane, a terrorist can walk up to a crowded security line without any ticket or credentials and kill a whole bunch of infidels with a suicide vest. This is because choke points restrict friendly movement, which is very bad, tactically. The choke points also line people up in a vulnerable area that the terrorist can easily access. This increases the freedom of movement of the terrorists by increasing the number or targets of opportunity for them, which, given the spontaneous and decentralized nature of the threat, is also very bad.
Complacency: The increased scrutiny creates a false impression of safety and diminishes vigilance. The TSA pretends to do it's job while the terrorists don't pretend to do theirs.

This is Kabuki security, a formalized dance that does nothing to secure us, and actually works to the detriment of real security.

What the TSA ought to be doing:


Sharing data: The US Customs Service has repeatedly identified potential threats, including the underwear bomber, which TSA and other security elements have failed to, because they have much more sophisticated tools for identifying potential smugglers. If TSA were obligated to use Customs data, a lot of threats would never get on the plane.
Restricting Access Points: We do not have jurisdiction over many foreign carriers, and our culture of leaking makes foreign governments skittish about sharing intel with us. As a result, lots of foreign carriers enter the US with little or no oversight at their points of origin. Again, think of the underwear bomber. Carriers that are suspect can be restricted to a few regional airports for inspection before movement to their hubs, which would protect major cities. If the carriers don't like that, they can comply with our security and be granted access to the major hubs.
Pre-screening Travelers: If the government trusts me with a secret clearance, why shouldn't the airlines? Military personnel, police and travelers who have consented to background checks in advance should be able to use their IDs to bypass the most intrusive security. Airlines should be able to grant their own frequent fliers the same exemptions for domestic flights. High-risk travelers should get the full monty. Those in between should get the normal procedures of a metal detector scan, with a small percentage selected for the high-risk protocols.
Cutting Off Access: Restrict visas from states that have a disproportionately high representation of terrorists. Travelers from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc., should be reduced to more manageable numbers, including persons intending to relocate for school, work or family reunification. If the people of those countries don't like it, they can start policing their own. There is no constitutional right to enter the US if you're not a citizen.
Prosecute Treason: Persons who become citizens and then commit terrorist acts are "levying war" against the United States and giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies. There is no more explicit example of this. The Times Square Bomber, the Somali teen who wanted to blow up the Portland tree-lighting and MAJ Nidal Hasan are all US citizens. They took the oath, we must hold them to it.

Madisonian
11-30-2010, 05:47 PM
What a bunch of fucking sheep.
You don't have a right to fly BAAAAAAAA
I don't have a problem with it BAAAAAAAA
I don't care about my 4th amendment rights or yours BAAAAAAAAA
I want to be safe if they have to shove a camera up my ass BAAAAAAAAA

Fucking sheep! You don't need the government to take your rights, your willing to give them away.

Airports don't need the TSA, they need Border Collies to herd the fucking sheep!

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 05:54 PM
*sigh* Looks like I have to post it again and explain it to you:


OK, here it is again. Now, how is pulling me out of a security line for further scrutiny reasonable? Also, per the amendment, if I am pulled aside, #1, there has to be probable cause. Being passenger #12 or whatever number they decide is not probable cause. And #2, I have to be told where exactly I'm being searched. But as I said, in order to do this, probable cause has to have been established. If I couldn't clear the metal detector, that's one thing but being pulled at random is not probable cause. If I cleared the metal detector and my belonging cleared the x-ray machine, there is no reason for further scrutiny. This is so plain and simple that it's scary. As I said before, purchasing an airline ticket in no way causes you to forfeit any of your rights. But let me expound on this a little more.

I am a sworn law enforcement officer. You may not think(and by you I'm being general) corrections is real law enforcement in the street police sense but according to my training and the oath I took when I took the job, and my certification, I am a full fledged law enforcement officer. That said, I just can't randomly grab people off the street and start patting them down. Neither can any cop on the street. In order to affect a search, we have to establish probable cause. There have been many cases that have been dismissed based on making this mistake. So, John Q. TSA Agent has to establish probable cause in order to pat me down and as I said, just being guy in line #5 or whatever doesn't count as probable cause.

As for this particular case. The cop who talks to her apparently told her that these TSA agents knew of her past complaints and if that is indeed true, making her stand in that little area for 45 minutes is not only absurd but it is indeed retaliatory. Regardless, the issue of the breast milk is a cut and dried one especially considering that she had TSA guidelines outlining that breast milk isn't subject to x-ray. In fact, these TSA agents are violating their own policy here. So, you can be OK with that, I refuse to be.


How is it unreasonable? They're playing the odds. a sampling of 1 out of every 12 is sufficient enough catch most threats. Beyond that you are comparing apples and oranges. The TSA is not snatching people off the street - it is screening people who wish to fly. KINDA like how police often do sobriety checkpoints. I fail to see how this is an unreasonable search. But beyond this ONE item I again ask - what rights are being violated and how?

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 05:56 PM
The screenings are wrong because they are not only ineffective, they are actually making us less safe. As I stated elsewhere, there are four major reasons that these procedures will fail:


Misdirection: A TSA agent who is patting down a screaming toddler is too busy to observe the crowd that is lined up, and will miss behavioral cues that indicate terrorists. That is what is known as misdirection. Focusing resources away from the threat means that the threat has greater freedom to act.
Restriction of Friendly Movement and Creation of New Areas of Vulnerability: The longer lines create chokepoints which line people up outside of the secure areas of the airport, creating a target rich environment for terrorists. Instead of having to pass security in order to detonate his device on a plane, a terrorist can walk up to a crowded security line without any ticket or credentials and kill a whole bunch of infidels with a suicide vest. This is because choke points restrict friendly movement, which is very bad, tactically. The choke points also line people up in a vulnerable area that the terrorist can easily access. This increases the freedom of movement of the terrorists by increasing the number or targets of opportunity for them, which, given the spontaneous and decentralized nature of the threat, is also very bad.
Complacency: The increased scrutiny creates a false impression of safety and diminishes vigilance. The TSA pretends to do it's job while the terrorists don't pretend to do theirs.

This is Kabuki security, a formalized dance that does nothing to secure us, and actually works to the detriment of real security.

What the TSA ought to be doing:


Sharing data: The US Customs Service has repeatedly identified potential threats, including the underwear bomber, which TSA and other security elements have failed to, because they have much more sophisticated tools for identifying potential smugglers. If TSA were obligated to use Customs data, a lot of threats would never get on the plane.
Restricting Access Points: We do not have jurisdiction over many foreign carriers, and our culture of leaking makes foreign governments skittish about sharing intel with us. As a result, lots of foreign carriers enter the US with little or no oversight at their points of origin. Again, think of the underwear bomber. Carriers that are suspect can be restricted to a few regional airports for inspection before movement to their hubs, which would protect major cities. If the carriers don't like that, they can comply with our security and be granted access to the major hubs.
Pre-screening Travelers: If the government trusts me with a secret clearance, why shouldn't the airlines? Military personnel, police and travelers who have consented to background checks in advance should be able to use their IDs to bypass the most intrusive security. Airlines should be able to grant their own frequent fliers the same exemptions for domestic flights. High-risk travelers should get the full monty. Those in between should get the normal procedures of a metal detector scan, with a small percentage selected for the high-risk protocols.
Cutting Off Access: Restrict visas from states that have a disproportionately high representation of terrorists. Travelers from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc., should be reduced to more manageable numbers, including persons intending to relocate for school, work or family reunification. If the people of those countries don't like it, they can start policing their own. There is no constitutional right to enter the US if you're not a citizen.
Prosecute Treason: Persons who become citizens and then commit terrorist acts are "levying war" against the United States and giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies. There is no more explicit example of this. The Times Square Bomber, the Somali teen who wanted to blow up the Portland tree-lighting and MAJ Nidal Hasan are all US citizens. They took the oath, we must hold them to it.

I don't disagree that there are better ways to do things - and that we will prolly soon face attacks at the security checkpoints - but I'm still left questioning how these screenings are a violation of our rights. :(

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 05:58 PM
What a bunch of fucking sheep.
You don't have a right to fly BAAAAAAAA
I don't have a problem with it BAAAAAAAA
I don't care about my 4th amendment rights or yours BAAAAAAAAA
I want to be safe if they have to shove a camera up my ass BAAAAAAAAA

Fucking sheep! You don't need the government to take your rights, your willing to give them away.

Airports don't need the TSA, they need Border Collies to herd the fucking sheep!

If you can't be grown up about this - if you cannot discuss the issue without making personal attacks against those who dare to disagree with you - then take your broad brush and FUCK off.:mad:

Rockntractor
11-30-2010, 07:26 PM
If you can't be grown up about this - if you cannot discuss the issue without making personal attacks against those who dare to disagree with you - then take your broad brush and FUCK off.:mad:

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/crazy-eyes-sheep.gif?t=1291163134

NJCardFan
11-30-2010, 07:31 PM
How is it unreasonable? They're playing the odds. a sampling of 1 out of every 12 is sufficient enough catch most threats. Beyond that you are comparing apples and oranges. The TSA is not snatching people off the street - it is screening people who wish to fly. KINDA like how police often do sobriety checkpoints. I fail to see how this is an unreasonable search. But beyond this ONE item I again ask - what rights are being violated and how?

Are you this fucking dense? How is it unreasonable? And nice strawman with the sobriety checkpoints so I will tackle this one first. Let's use that in the same terms as an airport checkpoint, shall we? You're driving down a main road in your home town(you're standing in line waiting to go through security). You happen upon a sobriety checkpoint(you approach the metal detectors). You get to the officer at the check point(you get to the agent at the machine). You roll down your window(go through the metal detector), and you have no alcohol on your breath(you don't *beep*), and the officer bids you adieu(the agent waves you through), and you go your merry way. However, let's backtrack to when you roll down your window(go through the metal detector). This time, there is a smell of alcohol(you *beep*). You are ordered to pull over for further scrutiny. The alcohol and the *beeping* is what would be considered probable cause. "Playing the odds" doesn't constitute probable cause or reasonable suspicion. You see, in the police sobriety checkpoints, you aren't pulled aside for further scrutiny unless they have probable cause to do so. At the TSA, you're pulled aside for further scrutiny because of a complicated process we in the law enforcement profession like to call eeny meeny miney moe. Big, big difference. But, again, if you want to be a sheep, that's your choice.



I don't disagree that there are better ways to do things - and that we will prolly soon face attacks at the security checkpoints - but I'm still left questioning how these screenings are a violation of our rights. :(

So having your cock and ass grabbed(tits and cooch if you're female) by a total stranger for no other reason than "rolling the dice" isn't a violation of your rights? If it isn't, I don't know what is.

Madisonian
11-30-2010, 07:31 PM
If you can't be grown up about this - if you cannot discuss the issue without making personal attacks against those who dare to disagree with you - then take your broad brush and FUCK off.:mad:

It is not a personal attack, it is frustration at what we are continuing to allow the government to do to us in the name of "protection". The biggest terrorist on any flight is the congress critter flying either home or back to Washington.
You may "feel" safer, but that is the illusion.
1 out of 12 is sufficient to catch most threats? Would you fly if you had an 8.5% chance of dying before the end of the flight?
I would feel safer, and there would be a better chance I would actually be safer, if every domestic flight had visibly armed security on board and forget the useless scans and gropes, but that may just be me.
Virtually every security expert I have read or seen endorses the Israeli model and shrugs off the current procedures.

We are being played as sheep by an ever increasing and encroaching government. They know they can take anything and everything if they preface it with the word "security" and all too many people will let them.

This shit with the TSA was my last straw.
What will yours be?

lacarnut
11-30-2010, 07:32 PM
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/crazy-eyes-sheep.gif?t=1291163134

Poli needs a hug.:p

Rockntractor
11-30-2010, 07:33 PM
Poli needs a hug.:p

http://static.black-frames.net/images/black-sheep.jpg

Odysseus
11-30-2010, 07:41 PM
I don't disagree that there are better ways to do things - and that we will prolly soon face attacks at the security checkpoints - but I'm still left questioning how these screenings are a violation of our rights. :(

I'm not simply saying that there are better ways to go about this, I'm saying that these TSA policies are actually making us less safe by misdirecting attention, creating more targets for the terrorists and creating complacency. They will increase the likelyhood of successful attacks, and that violates the most basic right of all, the right to live.

But, the language of the 4th Amendment is quite clear:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A search occurs only when a person has an expectation of privacy in the thing searched and society believes that expectation is reasonable (Katz v. United States). Thus, going through your underwear while you are wearing it constitutes a search, and if done without probable cause, it constitutes a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Under Terry v. Ohio (1968), the scope of a limited warrantless search required that when a police officer witnessed "unusual conduct" that leads to the reasonable belief "that criminal activity may be afoot", and that the suspect has a weapon and is presently dangerous, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon, but they must be able to point to specific facts which provide reasonable grounds. TSA scans and pat-downs of every person clearly do not meet that standard.

A search of an individual's person, under their clothing, based solely on their desire to board an aircraft is not consistent with the 4th Amerndment. The airlines have the right to do it as a pre-condition to boarding, but the government does not.

NJCardFan
11-30-2010, 07:47 PM
I'm not simply saying that there are better ways to go about this, I'm saying that these TSA policies are actually making us less safe by misdirecting attention, creating more targets for the terrorists and creating complacency. They will increase the likelyhood of successful attacks, and that violates the most basic right of all, the right to live.

But, the language of the 4th Amendment is quite clear:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A search occurs only when a person has an expectation of privacy in the thing searched and society believes that expectation is reasonable (Katz v. United States). Thus, going through your underwear while you are wearing it constitutes a search, and if done without probable cause, it constitutes a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Under Terry v. Ohio (1968), the scope of a limited warrantless search required that when a police officer witnessed "unusual conduct" that leads to the reasonable belief "that criminal activity may be afoot", and that the suspect has a weapon and is presently dangerous, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon, but they must be able to point to specific facts which provide reasonable grounds. TSA scans and pat-downs of every person clearly do not meet that standard.

A search of an individual's person, under their clothing, based solely on their desire to board an aircraft is not consistent with the 4th Amerndment. The airlines have the right to do it as a pre-condition to boarding, but the government does not.

Major, you and I are in total agreement. You just put it better than I did.

hampshirebrit
11-30-2010, 07:51 PM
How is it unreasonable? They're playing the odds. a sampling of 1 out of every 12 is sufficient enough catch most threats.

Oh bullshit. That's like saying you will play two-gun russian roulette with your kid and win.

There is only one thing that will work. It's the thing that bumps up the cost of every single El Al ticket and makes it much more likely that you will arrive where you intend to when you get on an El Al aircraft than when you do not board an El Al aircraft.

It's called sensible security. The TSA is not practicing that. Only El Al is.

El Al don't play 1/12 odds. They play 1/1 odds, and win, every single time. Problem with that, is, it costs, because it works, because it relies on proper HUMINT. Human brainpower costs a lot of cash, and it hurts some folk's feelings.

You want "it works", you gotta be willing to pay for "it works".

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 10:09 PM
Oh bullshit. That's like saying you will play two-gun russian roulette with your kid and win.

There is only one thing that will work. It's the thing that bumps up the cost of every single El Al ticket and makes it much more likely that you will arrive where you intend to when you get on an El Al aircraft than when you do not board an El Al aircraft.

It's called sensible security. The TSA is not practicing that. Only El Al is.

El Al don't play 1/12 odds. They play 1/1 odds, and win, every single time. Problem with that, is, it costs, because it works, because it relies on proper HUMINT. Human brainpower costs a lot of cash, and it hurts some folk's feelings.

You want "it works", you gotta be willing to pay for "it works".

I'd be fine with El Al style screenings.

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 10:11 PM
So having your cock and ass grabbed(tits and cooch if you're female) by a total stranger for no other reason than "rolling the dice" isn't a violation of your rights? If it isn't, I don't know what is. Let me put this in language you'll understand: DUMBASS, no one is GRABBING anything unless in your world passing the back of your hand over something constitutes grabbing. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 10:14 PM
It is not a personal attack, it is frustration at what we are continuing to allow the government to do to us in the name of "protection". The biggest terrorist on any flight is the congress critter flying either home or back to Washington.
You may "feel" safer, but that is the illusion.
1 out of 12 is sufficient to catch most threats? Would you fly if you had an 8.5% chance of dying before the end of the flight?
I would feel safer, and there would be a better chance I would actually be safer, if every domestic flight had visibly armed security on board and forget the useless scans and gropes, but that may just be me.
Virtually every security expert I have read or seen endorses the Israeli model and shrugs off the current procedures.

We are being played as sheep by an ever increasing and encroaching government. They know they can take anything and everything if they preface it with the word "security" and all too many people will let them.

This shit with the TSA was my last straw.
What will yours be?


This is what Government is supposed to do. This is a national security issue. What's trading liberty for security is Obamacare, medicare, SS . . . all of the 'safety' hammocks.

Rockntractor
11-30-2010, 10:17 PM
This is what Government is supposed to do. This is a national security issue. What's trading liberty for security is Obamacare, medicare, SS . . . all of the 'safety' hammocks.

Um safety hammocks are security sparky!

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 10:20 PM
I'm not simply saying that there are better ways to go about this, I'm saying that these TSA policies are actually making us less safe by misdirecting attention, creating more targets for the terrorists and creating complacency. They will increase the likelyhood of successful attacks, and that violates the most basic right of all, the right to live.

But, the language of the 4th Amendment is quite clear:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A search occurs only when a person has an expectation of privacy in the thing searched and society believes that expectation is reasonable (Katz v. United States). Thus, going through your underwear while you are wearing it constitutes a search, and if done without probable cause, it constitutes a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Under Terry v. Ohio (1968), the scope of a limited warrantless search required that when a police officer witnessed "unusual conduct" that leads to the reasonable belief "that criminal activity may be afoot", and that the suspect has a weapon and is presently dangerous, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon, but they must be able to point to specific facts which provide reasonable grounds. TSA scans and pat-downs of every person clearly do not meet that standard.

A search of an individual's person, under their clothing, based solely on their desire to board an aircraft is not consistent with the 4th Amerndment. The airlines have the right to do it as a pre-condition to boarding, but the government does not.

I guess we clearly see this issue quite differently. I see nothing here that constitutes an unreasonable search. I will grant you that there are much better ways to do it - but they are ways that are not cost/time effective - or they are measures that people will believe are too invasive. Reality is - this IS the airlines doing it as a precondition to boarding. It doesn't take a genius to realize however that were it actually the airlines doing the job then there would be unending lawsuits against the airlines and they would all be bankrupt.

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 10:21 PM
Um safety hammocks are security sparky!

Yes which is why I said - those things ARE trading liberty for security.

Rockntractor
11-30-2010, 10:31 PM
Yes which is why I said - those things ARE trading liberty for security.


What's trading liberty for security is Obamacare, medicare, SS . . . all of the 'safety' hammocks.
Is that what that meant?:confused:

PoliCon
11-30-2010, 10:33 PM
Is that what that meant?:confused:

Allow me to rephrase it then for you:

What constitutes trading liberty for security are things such as: Obamacare, medicare, SS . . . all of the 'safety' hammocks.

NJCardFan
11-30-2010, 11:32 PM
Allow me to rephrase it then for you:

What constitutes trading liberty for security are things such as: Obamacare, medicare, SS . . . all of the 'safety' hammocks.

And all of which none of us, except for members of congress, have a choice in taking part in these programs. Trading liberty for security, as Ben Franklin's sense, is supposed to be voluntary. I don't know about you but I didn't volunteer to have social security and medicare taxes taken from my paycheck. In order to "deserve neither" you must have been complicit. Again, your strawman fails on it's face.


This is what Government is supposed to do. This is a national security issue.
OK, exactly what breach of national security did a 3 year old toddler do? A nun? A 10 year old boy? Shit, even pilots are made to go through this nonsense and THEY ARE THE ONES FLYING THE FREAKING PLANES! If they wanted to do something to the passengers of the plane, all they have to do is fly the thing into the ground.


Let me put this in language you'll understand: DUMBASS, no one is GRABBING anything unless in your world passing the back of your hand over something constitutes grabbing.
Wow. This is like arguing with my dogs. OK, let's leave the groping thing aside for a minute and answer this simple question; Me, Joe Sixpack passenger, goes through the metal detector and doesn't set it off. Why would I be pulled aside for further scrutiny? What would be the TSA's probable cause? Why would they need to do an enhanced pat down on me if I cleared the machine and my belongings did the same? And I don't care what you may think, "rolling the dice" isn't probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

Madisonian
12-01-2010, 07:52 AM
This is what Government is supposed to do. This is a national security issue. What's trading liberty for security is Obamacare, medicare, SS . . . all of the 'safety' hammocks.

National security my ass.
What about the thousands of murders committed every year in this country over drugs, turf wars and by armed psychotics shooting up a school, mall or local McDonalds. These are more of a threat to the average person on the street than another underwear bomber.
Are you ok with cops stopping you anywhere at any time for any or no reason to search you entering a mall or church or anywhere else people are routinely killed?

Assault - an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

The government is not above the laws it creates, with or without a claim of so called national security.

Odysseus
12-01-2010, 09:37 AM
Major, you and I are in total agreement. You just put it better than I did.
Thanks.

Oh bullshit. That's like saying you will play two-gun russian roulette with your kid and win.

There is only one thing that will work. It's the thing that bumps up the cost of every single El Al ticket and makes it much more likely that you will arrive where you intend to when you get on an El Al aircraft than when you do not board an El Al aircraft.

It's called sensible security. The TSA is not practicing that. Only El Al is.

El Al don't play 1/12 odds. They play 1/1 odds, and win, every single time. Problem with that, is, it costs, because it works, because it relies on proper HUMINT. Human brainpower costs a lot of cash, and it hurts some folk's feelings.

You want "it works", you gotta be willing to pay for "it works".
El Al has certain structural advantages that we lack. First off, Israel has one main gateway, Ben Gurion Airport, in Tel Aviv. It's much easier to screen people when they are going through one point. In addition, El Al doesn't operate anywhere nearly as many flights as American or Continental. The sheer volume of screeners and other security personnel that we would need to hire and train would be a massive problem, and supervising that large a security aparatus would have its own unique headaches.

Let me put this in language you'll understand: DUMBASS, no one is GRABBING anything unless in your world passing the back of your hand over something constitutes grabbing. :rolleyes:
Okay, then get on a bus, scope out a hot babe, run the back of your hand over her ass and see what happens.


I guess we clearly see this issue quite differently. I see nothing here that constitutes an unreasonable search. I will grant you that there are much better ways to do it - but they are ways that are not cost/time effective - or they are measures that people will believe are too invasive. Reality is - this IS the airlines doing it as a precondition to boarding. It doesn't take a genius to realize however that were it actually the airlines doing the job then there would be unending lawsuits against the airlines and they would all be bankrupt.

You're in my area of expertise. I was the one who set up the vehicle ECP at Balad, upgraded the security there during OIF III and wrote the security SOP for vehicle convoys entering the base. Just to put that in perspective, Balad, or LSA Anaconda, was the logistics hub for Iraq, had a standing population of 15,000 PAX and would go up to 22,000 during surges, received most of the military air traffic and was the largest logistics base in theater, larger than Arifjan. When I got there, the truck convoys, which consisted of US forces as escorts and either US or TCN drivers of contract or military vehicles, and sometimes ran into the hundreds of vehicles, would arrive at the ECP with no security beyond a cursory ID check of the drivers. I directed the set up of the badging operation, established hardened lanes with backscatter machines, organized security at the staging areas and even took on a couple of shifts in order to troubleshoot the process. In other words, I was the TSA for Balad.

You keep coming back to saying that there are better ways to do it, but the problem is that what they are doing is worse than doing nothing. It actually reduces security, for the reasons that I have cited. Nothing else should matter, since if the protocols don't work, then there is no justification for the intrusion, and, again, I am speaking as someone who has done this on a massive scale. The issues are that the searches do not prevent more than a casual threat, which previous protocols were more than adequate to address, and that they create more vulnerabilities than they address. In addition, the search protocols are needlessly intrusive and constitute a violation of personal privacy that serves no compelling state interest, because they do not work, and are therefore not reasonable.