"President Obama, would you be okay with Sasha and Malia being Xrayed?"

[Stinky The Clown]

This is a policy that *his* DHS devised. People upset about it might wish to pose this question to him. The "junk" guy did what adults may choose to do. What that 3 year old went through was beyond the pale. What have we been forced to become?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tatiana]

2. Again, it just stuns me that this erosion of our civil liberties and privacy are taking place under

the auspices of a DEMOCRATIC administration.

I expect this sort of thing from Republicans.

[JamesA1102]

35. An airplane is owned by a private company

When you buy a ticket you agree to their rules. If you don't like it, take the train.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. So you're okay with the pat downs and electronic strip searches?

Really?

You'd be hunky dory with YOUR four year old pulled from line for a random pat down like that screaming little kid in the video, scared to DEATH by it all?

You'd be okay with that?

[JamesA1102]

43. Any one that doesn't like it is free

to choose another form of transportation.

[Greyhound]

74. Yes indeed, just as even the wealthiest person is banned from sleeping on park benches

and under our bridges. Fascism disguised as choice...
:eyes:

[JamesA1102]

86. Or they can take one of your buses

to get to where they are going!

[hobbit709]

85. Ben Franklin had a comment about your viewpoint.

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. It is the policy of the DHS.

:eyes:

[crikkett]

42. TSA isn't owned by the airlines so your comment is

incorrect.

[JamesA1102]

44. But the airlines adhere to TSA safety guidelines

so once you buy a ticket on their plane, you agree to their rules.

[walldude]

46. True. But TSA is a private company subcontracted

by the government. Oh and the TSA scanners are made by a company owned by former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff who was instrumental in getting TSA and his machines into every airport in America.

Look I am not one of these people who is all over the top about this, I have to fly all the time so I deal with it. But the fact is this has all been a scam from the beginning, a money making scam started way back right after 9/11.

[JamesA1102]

57. OK But what you are talking about is corruption

not a civil rights issue. Those are two different things.

[appal_jack]

45. That 'private' company is publicly chartered

Ah yes, the 'private' sphere, where all Constitutional liberties suddenly evaporate. And it's OK, y'know, because being oppressed by corporations is so much better than being oppressed by the gub-mint. :sarcasm:

Except that all the airlines are chartered by states, who are equally bound to uphold the Constitution.

And just about every airline has been bailed out by tax dollars since 2001.

And just about every airport has received public monies for construction, and road access, and much more.

And planes are kept flying by the Federal Aviation Administration.

And we are being kept 'safe' (i.e.- submissive and cowed) by the Federal TSA.

And the cost of every gallon of jet fuel is actively subsidized by tens of thousands of US troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and across the globe, plus dozens of carrier-groups, hundreds of missiles, and every other armament imaginable.

And amidst it all, I am getting very tired of bullshit corporatist pseudo-libertarian crap like "When you buy a ticket you agree to their rules." No, in fact, I don't. Our country must become better than that if America is to have any meaning whatsoever. Given the limited range of choices presented to me, I choose not to fly, but that doesn't make their oppressive bullshit legal. And when I absolutely must fly, my gritting my teeth and going through the line is not consent.

-app

[JamesA1102]

58. And you have every right to choose an alternate mode of transportation

there is not right to the fastest transportation possible guaranteed in the constitution.

[CanonRay]

117. Sir, which train do I take to get to London from Denver?

[JamesA1102]

119. Denver to New York by train

and New York to London by boat. See you do have alternatives.

[kayakjohnny]

104. Great reply! Absolutely awesome!

That poster is trying to stir up a shitstorm.

No one in their right mind could throw that crap out there and expect anyone to go with it.

Thanks for you post.

[JamesA1102]

109. No just the opposite

The shitstorm being stired up is about the full body scanners. Not the other way around. When you buy an airline ticket you agree to abid by their security measures to ride on their airplanes. If you don't like it, take the train.

[Hydra]

47. TSA = Federal Gov't

Fail. On more than one level. They can start doing this to you going into public buildings if they feel like it. Maybe even before you get on an interstate. How about a public school?

[JamesA1102]

59. Those are hypothetical extremes

which are just ways to demagogue an issue rather than deal with it honestly.

[Hydra]

95. Uh huh

And they don't have metal detectors in courthouses, right? Or schools. Or other places where they are trying to mitigate risk. They also don't do strip-searches at those places either, right?

Don't let me stop you on your trail of fail, however. Facts are ignorable when they don't support your opinion, right?

[JamesA1102]

100. So you're argument is that people should be allowed to carry guns

into courthouses, schools and on to airplanes?

[Hydra]

102. I have no problem with metal detectors

So I'm not sure how you took that away from this. I do have a problem with full body x-rays or gropes as your option to enter public buildings.

Btw, thank you for tacitly admitting that you were wrong on your previous post about how these places are already under scrutiny and could be the next venue for this behavior.

[JamesA1102]

108. So some invasions of privacy are OK with you

but others are not? Nice double standard.

[superduperfarleft]

50. And our tax dollars pay for the DHS and TSA. n/t

[WinkyDink]

62. So restaurants, being private enterprises, are free to exclude minorities?

[JamesA1102]

67. False equivelency

But if a restaurant has a no shoes, no service policy or a cash only, no credit card policy; anyone that chooses to eat at that restaurant would have to adhere to those policies.

[ljm2002]

66. TSA is not private...

...and the rules are not private, they are put in place by the government.

Just fyi.

[JamesA1102]

68. But the airlines adhere to TSA safety guidelines

And have the right to choose an alternate form of transportation.

[ljm2002]

69. Ha ha this is fun...

...first of all, yes, the airlines adhere to TSA safety guidelines because they are required by law to do so.

Second, the body of your post makes no sense as it says that the airlines have the right to choose an alternate form of transportation.

Third, assuming you mean that we citizens have the right to choose an alternate form of transportation, you are missing the point. The point is, these people are scanning us and groping us now when we choose to fly. If no one objects, next it will be as we cross state borders in our cars. Or board trains (actually I think that one is already in the works). Or get on boats, or any form of public transportation.

All the while, it is still the case that not much of the checked luggage is inspected. It is still the case that 2% or so of incoming cargo is inspected -- in fact a few years ago a man travelled here from Egypt inside a container all set up with food, etc.

This is a disgusting overreach by our government and should and must be stopped.

We are either a free people or we are not. Right now I'm leaning towards not.

[JamesA1102]

70. And you have every right to choose an alternate mode of transportation

if you don't like the safety requirements.

[KittyLover]

73. I've seen you say that

at least three times now. The point is that we SHOULDN'T have to. We shouldn't have to drive hours longer to avoid being molested, or to avoid having TSA in essence watch a bit of child pornography. It is unwarranted, and a breach of privacy. That's just how I feel personally.

[JamesA1102]

75. Please tell me where the constitution guarantees you the right

to take the fastest mode of transportation available.

[KittyLover]

79. Basic human rights

would dictate that these TSA idiots don't have a right to invade everybody's personal space, and fondle their groins. Now they're even doing it to KIDS?! That's just not right. I don't care how you slice it, James. It isn't right.

[JamesA1102]

83. But you can choose an alternate form of transportation

if you don't like it. So your basic rights are not being violated.

[ljm2002]

78. Of course...

...when they start to stop cars at state borders to do pat downs, and then they pat you down to get on a train or a bus, or a subway, I'm sure you will be fine with that too. Because after all, you can still walk to get where you're going. Or swim, if it's across the ocean. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Do you really, sincerely, believe that these nudie scanners and intrusive pat downs make us safer? Oh never mind, this is like arguing with a parrot.

-- Me: Do you think these nudie scanners make us safer?
-- Parrot: Squawk! Don't fly then!
-- Me: Do you not object to intrusive pat downs?
-- Parrot: Squawk! Safety!
-- Me: What about checked luggage that isn't inspected?
-- Parrot: Squawk! Don't fly then!
-- Me: What will happen when they start doing it for every kind of public transport?
-- Parrot: Squawk! Safety!
-- Me: What about all the obvious measures they never take, like inspecting more than 2% of incoming containers?
-- Parrot: Squawk! Don't fly then!

et cetera

[JamesA1102]

84. That is extremist rhetoric

designed to shut down debate.

[ljm2002]

91. Debate? What debate?

I bring up various points, such as the lack of security in other areas, or a question of whether these tactics will be extended to other modes of transportation (and I hear trains are next), and your reply is: It is your choice not to fly if you disapprove of the safety measures.

My response was more of an acknowledgment of the shape of our exchange.

[JamesA1102]

93. You hear trains are next?

Really from whom?

[CreekDog]

112. and you telling people 20 times to take an alternate form of transportation doesn't shut down debate

because that's how you end all your arguments.

thou doth protest too much.

[JamesA1102]

115. False equivelency nt

[CreekDog]

121. Thanks for proving my point!

:rofl:

[JamesA1102]

123. You're a legend in your own mind nt

[TfG]

96. I couldn't agree more

IMO, this is right up there with searching someone without probable cause. I was watching that segment last night and I was just outraged by this atrocity. Just because there have been a few to try to blow up a plane, doesn't make all people criminals - and without just cause - there should be no reason a person should be groped and body scanned. It is deplorable that this is being allowed to happen.

And I don't care if there are other methods of transportation. Of course, I will not fly with this kind of atrocity in place. But anyway, this is a violation of our liberties. If no one objects, what will be next? Will our children be groped and body scanned going to school.

It just floors me that people accept this.

[northernlights]

81. if you are advocating a boycott of the airlines, then I agree

I wish the staff could boycott, but at least if the passengers get smart and take the train or drive then the message will be loud and clear and the TSA will be left to play with themselves.

[Mimosa]

97. The airlines did not devise Homeland Security or the TSA. n/t

[JamesA1102]

118. But they have the right to use private security if they don't

like what the TSA is doing.

[DeSwiss]

105. You missed the WHOLE point. But it appears that was your purpose. n/t

[JamesA1102]

120. No you miss the point

that you don't have a right to travel by airplane.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leveymg]

4. If they haven't been, I'm sure they will be.

By the time they're 12, they will most likely have been Xrayed by the dentist and/or the doctor. This is only a small faction of the dosage of a medical Xray.

If Sasha or Malia were a commercial pilot, they might have more to worry about.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. You're concerned with the dosage?

I dare say the machines are probably safe (relatively speaking).

This isn't about radiation. It is about INDIGNITY!

[madinmaryland]

10. Sadly, even here on DU, there are folks that are not concerned about their freedoms

being eroded.

[leveymg]

15. Freedoms eroded? Your freedoms were lost when we didn't start impeachment on 9/12

And nobody has fought harder, more persistently, for accountability for the Bush-Cheney intelligence policy failure which "allowed" those hijackings to happen than I.

This is nothing but a faint echo of the the very real freedoms to secure communications that were lost because America did nothing to bring accountability for the deaths of 3,000 people that day and the million or so who died unnecessarily thereafter in the GWOT.

[madinmaryland]

30. I was not really replying to you, but I do agree with you. Over the last ten

years our freedoms have been eroded, through various insidious laws and decisions by the * administration, and most if not all have been affirmed by the Obama Admin.

[leveymg]

11. Death is undignified. I don't want to increase the chances of it happening.

Regain proportions, people. Even if it were somewhat humiliating -- which it's not (in my view) -- so what?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

14. it is also about radiation

no level of non-diagnostic radiation exposure is 100% safe, especially in children

[leveymg]

16. Then don't fly, and don't let your kids fly. They get a bigger dose of radiation at 35,000 ft.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

32. well, I don't... and they are lying ahout

the radiation involved... I guarantee you that

[rexcat]

52. That is a nice opinion but...

you are not basing your opinion on any scientific facts. No studies were conducted to prove the x-ray machines are safe. The TSA did not have to go through any regulatory approval by the FDA to place these machines in service (my personal communications with the FDA). There is now major concern related to the dose that is actually being given. Some scientists now think it could be up to 6 times the stated dose. And if you are not aware, x-ray machines produce ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is not good for carbon-based life forms. No one knows if low dose x-ray exposure for extended periods is good for you. No one has done or will do the studies because it would be UNETHICAL.

You are correct about the indignity thing but totally wrong about the radiation thing. There is also that pesky 4th amendment to the US Constitution but there seems to be a lot of Americans who really don't care about it.

[Sirveri]

88. Actually studies have been done of radiation workers by the UN.

They found that workers who maintained their dose rates inside the current federal limits (5R/yr NTE 3R/qtr) would only experience a .04% increase in risk of cancer. The dose given from the scanners is MUCH lower than that. So unless you fly at least once a week, you really shouldn't worry about the radiation effect from the scanners. Privacy... I don't care who sees my junk, I'll wave it all over the place if I want to, but it's still a violation of the 4th and it should never have gotten to this point. Actually that might be a funny protest, walk up to the security gate and just start stripping nude.
Lots of wonderful ionizing radiation health effects data here:
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/index.html

[rexcat]

92. Your dose of radiation for this equipment is based on what the manufacturer...

stated but there seems be some debate on the actual dose received. There is one scientist out of California (I think UCSF from 11/18/2010 USA Today article, front page) who says the dose could be 10x higher than the stated dose and other credible scientists and physicians agree with him. The other issue here is the dose is concentrated on one organ. This is a major concern. Some frequent fliers, including myself could be x-rayed 100's of times in a given year with these machines and that does not include what I have received for therapeutic or diagnostic procedures. The FDA has a new program to lower the amount of x-rays patients receive and this goes counter to that program.

The other issue that some people don't want to discuss is this technology effective? It would appear from what is being said in Europe, Israel and to some extent here in the US the answer is a big NO. All the experts, including the TSA, have stated this technology would not have stopped the underwear bomber and they site this reason for implementing these machines earlier than they would have. The other problem is Chertoff, former DHS Secretary, left "government" service and is working for the company he approved to supply the backscatter x-ray machines when he was in charge of the DHS. Could there be a conflict of interest here? Do you really trust the TSA to do the right thing, I don't, considering Napolitano and Pistole have outright lied about this issue, and my personal dealings with TSA. The TSA is a reactive organization, not a proactive one. They make decisions based on panic and fear resulting in poor decisions on what we as a nation need for good airport securtiy..

One more point - is strip searching everyone who wants to fly really appropriate. We still have a Constitution and I don't think the 4th amendment has been repealed. What can we expect next, cavity searches? Where is the nonsense going to stop?

[Sirveri]

103. If the x-ray strength is too high the device can't work.

It's not physically possible, the x-ray beam would pass through the body. The independent tests I've seen showed a less than 0.1mR dose, which considering you take 8-10mR a month, isn't all that significant.

As for effectiveness, they're not at all effective. Just take a ceramic knife and put it on you inner thigh. If you're significantly overweight you could probably tuck it into a fold somewhere. Or of course do the good old fashioned anal smuggling. Then there's the obvious 4th amendment violations, which have been happening since we've been told we can't bring a can of sealed soda past the security check. I'm on the ACLU's side on that one, but I just think the radiation issue is a non-starter.

[rexcat]

106. Time will tell about the safety of the x-rays...

Several experts quoted in the USA Today (11/18/2010) are concerned about cornea damage and radiation to the testicles. My bet is it is not safe. I have had radiation safety courses when I was working with radioisotopes. I have a lot of respect for any type of radiation.

I also contacted the FDA and according the FDA these machines did not have to go through any regulatory approval process. There was no evaluation process, no safety studies conducted and no proof of safety was required. The interesting thing is my initial e-mail to the FDA ended up going up several wrungs on the ladder before I got my questions answered but the person who finally responded was forthright in his answers.

I fly every week. I can take 2-6 flights per week. I don't want to be x-rayed every time I go to the airport. I have also had my share of CT-scans and x-rays in the past couple of years. It is not like I am a occasional flyer without other radiation exposure.

One of my biggest concerns is with children. They should not be exposed to this radiation. On top of that the screeners are basically looking at naked children (kids under the age of 18). By federal law this is child pornography and any time a kid is patted down they are essentially molesting the children. None of this is acceptable.

[Sirveri]

107. You fly often enough that you probably should opt out.

For the average person who only flies once or twice a year to visit their Aunt Mildred or whatever, it's not a concern. In addition if you had rad health training (as I have as well), then you'd know that the X-ray is simply a lower powered form of gamma ray and behaves in a similar fashion. In this particular case these machines could be shown to be similar to a low level beta skin exposure, which currently has a federal maximum limit of 50R and 15R for the eyes.

[rexcat]

111. There seems to be some questions as to what the dose of radiation...

the machines are delivering. The FDA has taken the word of the manuafacturer at their word (personal communications with the FDA). That said it is still a strip search and I have noticed that a large minority of people who go through the scanner end up getting patted down anyway. What is the point if you have to be patted down after getting your dose of x-rays?

The problem that I have is the pat downs are really nasty and have gotten worse in the past three months. I have had my share of pat downs because I had shoulder replacement surgery November 2009 with an additional 2 major surgeries within two months of the shoulder replacement. The end of 2009 and beginning of 2010 was not a good time for me. I will set off the magnometer if I have any additional metal on me. If I remove my glasses, watch, belt and make sure no additional metal (coins, etc.) is on me I won't set off the damn thing. I have been physically hurt twice with these pat downs even after telling the screeners that I had the shoulder surgery and showing the rather large scar on my shoulder to them. The first time they hurt me the pain took about 12 hours to subside. If this had happened one or two months earlier I would have been having a fourth major surgery. The second time they hurt me I went to complain to the supervisors and all they did was laugh at me. They thought is was funny. It does no use to complain to TSA., they don't respond and nothing gets done. It has gotten personal with me.

[CreekDog]

113. UCSF clinics are telling their patients to avoid the scanners

one patient going through cancer treatment was told with others to avoid those scanners completely.

meanwhile a top UCSF researcher has written the White House to state that the machines are untested (medically) and that the nature of the technology will cause cancers, especially in vulnerable populations.

so indignity is an issue, but it goes further than that.

"While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high," they wrote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101113/hl_afp/usairportsecurityhealth_20101113020345

[GiordanoBruno]

7. Cancer issues are only one of the considerations

How can a free society compel strip searches and genital touching as a precondition for freedom of movement?

[leveymg]

18. It's not a strip search, and no one will touch your "junk" if you go through the damn scanner.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leveymg]

21. Because people continue to try to blow up airplanes in the United States.

When that stops, these things can go on the junk heap.

[avaistheone1]

25. Better throw them in the junk heap today.

I don’t know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines (they are useless). I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747, that is why we have not put body scans our airport.

These are the words of Rafi Sela, an Israeli airport security expert who helped design the security in Israel’s largest airport.

http://political-economy.com/full-body-scanners-in-airports-are-wrong/

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Life is not without risk

What level of risk is acceptable?

MANY things kill more people in a month than terrorists have killed in this country EVER.

We are either a nation of weenies or a nation of suspects . . . . or BOTH.

[leveymg]

28. We ceased to be a nation of free people on 9/12 when we didn't demand accountability

and the trial of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

We are a nation of weenies, and this rebellion against the scanners does little to change that. It merely confirms that they have won.

[Hydra]

48. *LMAO*

"Because people continue to try to blow up airplanes"

This has more to do with profit margins than terrorist threats. TSA admits this wouldn't have stopped the previous(faked) attempts.

[Pacifist Patriot]

55. Do they teach either probabilities or risk analysis in school anymore?

[Hydra]

94. Hard to say

People tell me their heads hurt when I start talking about .056...% chance. I consider that a bad sign.

[Pacifist Patriot]

54. You've got a fabulous supply of duct tape and plastic sheeting in your garage, don't you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. They are useless for what they are intended

a dog. well trained dog... and or chemical sniffers do work though...

Cui Bono?

[avaistheone1]

27. No one should be forced to make the choice between the damned scanner

and a freaking groping.

[GiordanoBruno]

29. The Damn Scanner

is a strip search. Just because it takes less time and it more "convenient" doesn't mean it doesn't rob you of your clothes. Tell me, pray tell ANY significant difference between being forced to strip and having a body scanner machine strip you.

You can't make a moral distinction on convenience.
You can't make a moral distinction on the public or private nature of it.

What exactly is your moral distinction?

[Cid_B]

82. I was pulled for a "random" check last week when I flew...

and I there was no choice of scanner etc...

In the end it is just a bridge too far for most people. Eventually we will get to prison style searches with gloved fingers and a flashlight and who knows what else...

[bluetrain]

8. Not true.

[leveymg]

20. What's not true? You don't think their dentist will Xray them?

[704wipes]

64. No, I read two airlines advise their pilots NOT to be x-rayed

So they must know something we DON'T. What do you suppose THAT is?

[avaistheone1]

5. Children and older humans should not have to go through this indignity

and insult. It degrades and demeans us as a people.






k&r

[Stinky The Clown]

9. That picture is STUNNING.

[Danger Mouse]

17. Ugh.

:puke:

[obxhead]

24. None of us should have to go through this indignity. Period. nt

[redirish28]

31. How does pating down a small child that age makes sense to anyone?

The Patriot Act was nothing more than handing over our common sense to Politicians and Corporations.

[Pacifist Patriot]

56. If I read one more time that....

"some parents will wire their children to be bombs" I'm going to vomit. Had to log off Facebook today before I blew my top.

[TfG]

99. It certainly was

When you think about it, things started out with searching purses and bags at sporting events, Six Flags, etc. for guns. Now it's come to body scans and groping? What will be next? Body cavity searches? That is, if they're not doing that already.

[sally cat]

12. You really have a knack for clarity and common sense. Thanks.

[redirish28]

13. Very legit question.

[Catherina]

22. Would he be ok with his wife getting groped? Or his daughters? n/t

[BlueIris]

23. Now, now, I'm sure there's nothing President Obama can do to stop this stuff.

He's being attacked, you know. He has to deal with the hostile corporate media. He now has an uncooperative congress and is taking hits from the professional left. It's not like he can be expected to, you know, do his job or anything. You silly man, expecting the president to actually end corrupt practices in his own government.

[TransitJohn]

33. After they're installed in all the airports, with the gropings too, the policy will be fixed later.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
:sarcasm:

[Mimosa]

34. I bet he'd say HELL,NO. n/t

[AngryOldDem]

36. They won't have to worry about that, now will they?

And tonight, did I hear that even MORE intrusive searches may be in the works? What the hell more can they do?

[LibDemAlways]

37. This shit keeps up and they'll be sitting around with

no one to ogle or grope because people will stay the hell home. And when the public starts voting with their wallet and not buying tickets, the airlines will put pressure on the politicians to end this unconstitutional immoral crap. That's what it will take. $$ talks.

[Lugnut]

38. This is beyond the pale.

There is no way that I would subject myself to this kind of assault let alone that of my children. I'm just glad that I have no need to fly for any reason. I never thought i'd live long enough to see the day when civil liberty and privacy are trashed.

BTW, I love your sig line. If only.

[nc4bo]

41. Didn't mind them swimming in the toxic waters known as the Gulf of Mexico.

Or perhaps that was just photo-op. Don't think we'll be seeing them vacationing down there with any regularity.

so sick of this......

[woo me with science]

49. Could be a plot to increase support for Amtrak. nt

[tblue37]

51. No, it was first devised and the procedures now being used were

first tested during the Bush administration.

Aside from that detail, I agree that question should be posed.

[Stinky The Clown]

61. Doesn't matter when they were developed. What matters is when they were implemented

They were implemented under the Obama administration.

That is a simple, straightforward fact. The specifics of when they got developed is completely irrelevant.

[Pacifist Patriot]

53. Good Question Bad Detail

This originated in the Bush administration.

[Stinky The Clown]

60. No

This "enhanced" procedure is brand spanking new.

This is NOT a bush-era policy. It is an Obama-era policy.

[Pacifist Patriot]

65. R&D, studies and pilots begun under Bush administration.

By the way, the scanners were first put into use in 2005. By my calculations, that predates the Obama administration. But I get your point. Policy fully implemented now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Actually it did start with the Bush Admin

problem is... that the government behaves like a carrier. they don't stop easily and they don't turn easily...

And it SHOULD have been shelved and probably was... until one Christmas day last year.

[sally cat]

72. Blaming Bush for stuff going wrong now allows more stuff to go wrong now.

[Pacifist Patriot]

90. Not necessarily.

I'm not excusing the Obama administration just because the Bush administration initiated the program. They can affect the policy and put a halt to it. I believe they have a constitutional duty to do so as it clearly violates the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I will hold their feet to the fire on it.

However, I'm not going to let the Bush administration off on this one, particularly when I have had Bush supporters screaming their bloody head off at me about how Obama is violating their rights, conveniently forgetting the insane intrusiveness of their beloved Shrub.

[crazyjoe]

63. he won't be the pres forever, and they will have to be xrayed

like everyone else. He knows that.

[sabrina 1]

71. It's worse than being x-rayed, it's allowing strangers to grope

your children, your wife, your mother or husband. Would he allow that?

Every decent politician should be up in arms over this.

[northernlights]

80. maybe he'd prefer that they get groped.

:shrug:

I was done with this administration a while ago. Every day, they still manage to make things even worse. Hopefully soon enough they will be so bad that people will start to seriously fight back for their rights. All our rights.

[ecstatic]

87. The scanners should have been the LAST step

in a comprehensive screening process. As it stands, I don't even think luggage is checked yet. And are the maintenance men/women screened every single day, and their work double checked?

So what's the purpose of a virtual strip search when there are so many other gaping holes in our security?

When all those other security concerns are addressed, then the scanners will make more sense as the last obstacle in fully securing flights.

[TBF]

89. Not to mention being groped by over-enthusiastic TSA agents. nt

[fascisthunter]

98. isn't it just special to have people here defending this breach of privacy

all hail the war on.... on.... on.... "well ya never no, it could happen.... psst, buy our scanners and find a purpose for them, don't forget to thank tax payers."

[lovuian]

101. Obama let his daughter swim in Gulf oil saturated waters

and now its ok fo them to get cancer

Is he a good father?
NO

He looks like a slave of Corporations

[avaistheone1]

114. Wonder if his kids ate the seafood there.

The President said it was safe.

[truth2power]

110. Don't feed it. n/t

[nc4bo]

116. I find myself agreeing more with Stinky's posts than disagreeing with them.

Feed what? Stinky's pov {which btw, several others share) or the TSA's actions?

What are you actually trying to say and against what or whom? :shrug:

[truth2power]

122. I hope you (and Stinky) will accept my apologies. I didn't mean for this to be a response to

Stinky's OP. I wholeheartedly agree with Stinky's position, and those of others here who find the TSA's policies to be a gross assault on our dignity and privacy.

I just can't understand, though, how some people can dismiss the TSA assaults on our person by saying that travelers should just choose another mode of transportation. What an absurd and clueless thing to say. Such a statement falls into the category, as already stated above, of claiming that the poor have a right to sleep under bridges.

Air travel is an integral part of our transportation system, and many people have no choice but to fly, because of time or distance constraints. Promoting the idea that passengers should endure exposure to dangerous radiation or genital groping in order to travel from point A to point B is silliness on stilts, and rises to the level of flame-bait, IMO.