TSA to ease pat-downs of kids

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Politico

Children 12 years old and younger will soon be subject to less intrusive pat-down screenings at airport security checkpoints, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress.

According to the new policy, kids will no longer be regularly required to remove their shoes at Transportation Security Authority airport screenings. The new policy will also include measures to screen young children without resorting to an intrusive pat-down of private areas on the body, according to the AP.

Napolitano said on Tuesday that the change would be implemented in the next few weeks, but the TSA later said that the changes could be rolled out in just a few weeks.

The TSA plans to reduce the number of pat-downs given to children by asking screeners to send children through metal detectors, or to walk through imaging machines multiple times to capture a clearer picture. Other measures, such as using more explosive trace detection tools, will be used as well.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63476.html

[RushIsRot]

1. I suppose all the TSA pedophiles will need to seek other employment.

[hlthe2b]

2. You'll get some angry retorts from that comment...

(but I'd be lying if I said that was not the first thing that came to mind....:mad: )

--With all due respect to those TSA agents that actually strive to be professionals, despite some very shitty management and abhorrent policies--

[Arctic Dave]

4. +1

Fuck the TSA.

[KoKo]

5. Agree that's bizarre and the article doesn't go into more detail..

also "explosive detectors" does that mean "sniffing dogs" that would intimidate adults and scare the heck out of young children.

[RC]

8. Those TSA that like lumps and bumps and body hair will still like their job.

We need to stop being so paranoid and stop making terrorists both in our military and in the Meddle... er Middle East.
That would do much more than frisking granny on her way home.

[Fokker Trip]

9. Paedophiles like to hunt where there is lots of fresh "meat".

It makes sense to me. Why would that anger anyone? Because the TSA agents are such fine upstanding people? hahahahah.

[freedom fighter jh]

3. "walk through imaging machines multiple times"?!?!?!?!?!

Has anyone considered the health risk?

[KoKo]

6. Agree that's bizarre and the article doesn't go into more detail..but

also "explosive detectors" does that mean "sniffing dogs" that would intimidate adults and scare the heck out of young children.

[Gormy Cuss]

12. Probably means the swabs.

They're used for belongings like backpacks and briefcases now, so for kids they may be used on their teddy bears and shoes (since they don't have to remove them anymore.)

[KoKo]

15. "Re-training" I guess.. That would take some time.

It all sucks.

[Fokker Trip]

10. Exactly what I thought too.

Hey Johnny, don't forget to get your new improved high level dose of radiation at the airport. Hey its largely untested tech but X-rays don't cause any damage do they? So this must be OK.

Effing security theater. Making no one safer but getting everyone used to state sanctioned invasion of all privacy.

[Divine Discontent]

17. yeah, they have, lots of times. I still won't fly though for that reason and the ridiculous

treatment of passengers when they are randomly chosen for groping.


http://www.zazzle.com/republicans_2012_keeping_millions_out_of_work_bumper_sticker-128002960205017719

[elias7]

18. Yes, health risks have been considered. I'll let you do your own research, though.

One study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine states that Back scatter scanning uses limited radiation compared to conventional x-rays.

Scans for $200, Alex.

The answer is: 50
What is , "Number of airport body scans a person would have to endure to equal the amount of radiation exposure from a single dental X-ray, according to a new study. It would take 4,000 airport scans to equal the radiation exposure from a mammogram, and 200,000 airport scans to match the radiation delivered by one abdominal CT scan."

[freedom fighter jh]

19. Can you document that?

I know you said you'd let me do my own research, but if you've got this info wouldn't it make sense for you to state a source? I can't guess where you got it from.

[bongbong]

7. Logical outcome

This has interesting impact from a logical standpoint. You can make a very similar argument to the one I use to rip Pro-Government-Womb-Control idiots.

For the womb-control addicts, just ask them if they'll allow abortions in the case of rape/incest/etc. If they say yes, then their whole argument falls apart, since their exceptions have nothing to do with the medical status of their Holy Fetuses. If they say no, then you can accuse them of saying that rape victims will be, basically, traumatized for their entire lives. Easiest way I've seen to dispose of the Big Government Control lovers.

Similarly, if the TSA now says 12 and under is OK, that means .... I think you can see where this goes. The real reason for the airport screenings become even more obvious. They have nothing to do with safety, rather, they are about 75% for repig profiteering, and 25% for getting people acclimated to our new police-state.

[Gormy Cuss]

13. Exactly.

It's why TPTB resisted making changes for children up to this point.

This is at least the third responsive change to security in the past to years (implementing more of the fuzzy image body scanners, allowing the quart bag of of liquid materials to remain in the X-rayed hand luggage are the other two that come to mind.)

Passengers must complain early and often about security theater. No one wants to stop necessary security, but the level of intrusive, seemingly useless security procedures is finally ticking off flyers.

[saras]

11. Until the FBI finds a nutcase they can talk into hiding something in their kids' undies...

...then everything will be back to "normal", only now we'll have PROOF that cavity searches of children are NECESSARY for our SECURITY.

[arikara]

14. Why does it take a few weeks to roll out the changes

you'd think a memo saying "effective immediately no children under 12 will be groped" would suffice. It takes several weeks to come up with that?

[Merlot]

16. Yes, have the kids walk through the imaging machines a whole buncha times

because young developing bodies need extra radiation. Keeps bones strong and teeth shiny!