Biden: Airport screening pat-downs a 'necessary policy'

[The Northerner]

Vice President Joe Biden is defending the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) controversial new pat-down technique, calling it a "necessary policy."

Biden acknowledged people have concerns that the TSA's use of full-body scanners and pat-downs are frustrating and intrusive but argued they are crucial to prevent another incident like the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing.

"Well look, Larry, maybe because I spend so much time every morning dealing with the threat assessment that's out there and the fact that it's real — I understand peoples' frustration, but I — unless there's a new technology that comes along pretty quickly, I think it's — I think it's a necessary policy," he said on CNN's "Larry King Live" program. "I think it will have the effect of saving lives, intercepting explosives."

Even though the TSA's new policy has riled lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Biden's comments indicate the agency will continue to scan or pat down passengers at the nation's airports.

Biden is the highest-ranking member of the administration to comment on the policy since it was put in place. Asked if anyone in the administration is against the pat-downs, the vice president said: "No. We're all in the administration saying continue to look to see what the best technology and the least intrusive that gives us the greatest security."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/130089-biden-pat-downs-a-necessary-policy

[CBGLuthier]

1. I hate it when people who are exempt tell us what to do about something.

Nobody frisks him. The elite walk above us.

[Johonny]

17. +1

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. if he is looking at threat assessments then he should be aware

that the threat is NOT IN THE FUCKING CABIN OF THE PLANE. The threat is cargo and stowed baggage which receives minimal treatment compared to the x-rayed and groped traveling public...

sP

[JohnyCanuck]

3. Why no anal probes is what I want to know.

It has apparently been conceded that the new machines and search procedures can't detect explosives stuffed up a terrorist's bunghole. Supposedly any terrorist worth his salt and wanting to smuggle explosives onto an aircraft would be aware of this too. That means the new intensive search procedures are pretty much useless if routine anal probes are not part of the SOP. To my mind, it would be analagous to having a vehicle security check at a border or secure facility entrance where the guards rigorously use those mirrors mounted on long poles to poke underneath vehicles so they can look under cars and trucks for contraband and/or illegal stowaways clinging to the undercarriage but don't also have a policy of asking the drivers to open the trunk lid so they can look inside the trunk to verify it too is clean.

I suggest to anyone who really thinks these checks are there to detect terrorists and not just intimidate the populace into supporting the implementation of more police state type tactics in the future, please set an example for the rest of us next time you go through an airport security check: drop your drawers, bend over and spread your ass cheeks while demanding the TSA agent poke a gloved finger up your ass to verify there are no bombs hidden where the sun don't shine.

[JohnyCanuck]

21. A fringe benefit to a routine pre-boarding anal probe

For the males, the TSA agent can check your prostate for you at the same time: "OK buddy, you're clean, but that prostate sure felt sort of hard and lumpy. When was your last PSA test? Might be a good idea to get it checked out just to be safe."

[democrat_patriot]

4. I agree with Biden.

Don't like, don't fly.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. yeah...there's a valid choice... n/t

[Webster Green]

11. It must suck to be so fearful.

Jeezus, get a fucking grip. :eyes:

[damntexdem]

5. Now there's a pat answer, ...

by Mr. commuter train from Delaware.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. It's "necessary" to keep the public frightened and obedient.

The sad part is that it works.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Biden also thought it was a good idea to pass a law where anyone putting on a concert where someone

in the audience might smoke a joint, would be exposed to felony charges.

Sorry, Joe, but your handle on what is reasonable and "necessary" isn't always the best.

[DainBramaged]

8. Vice President Joe, can we squeeze your junk at the airport?

:eyes:

[Nay]

10. Well, that tells me what I need to know. I don't consider myself a "one-issue"

voter, but when Democrats agree with unconstitutional searches, then I have to consider not voting. I'll die before I vote for a Pub.

[Raine]

12. That's real nice

to say it's necessary especially when you're exempt. :eyes: If it's "necessary" I don't care who you are EVERYONE should have to endure it, NO exemptions for ANYONE and I mean ANYONE!

[Toucano]

13. Why do they seem so MARRIED to this flawed process?

Incredible!

[Puregonzo1188]

15. Yeah, I have to wonder why anyone interested in being reelected would link themselves to such a

clearly unpopular issue. Everyone seems to be disturbed by this regardless of their political beliefs (can you remember the last time that happened? I can't) defending this issue isn't going to help. Plus, it's so obvious a useless measure, as well as a politically unpopular one it just seems like bad strategy to link oneself to it.

[Matariki]

14. Great. Just fucking great. We have the right wing fighting this issue

and the Democrats defending it.

Way to go.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Let's clarify, the elite

they are doing this for a reason and security is down on the priority, of course imho.

[soryang]

24. He was for the war in Iraq also

A Nuremberg crime.

[alarimer]

16. Says the guy who never has to go through it.

Since he flies on the taxpayers' dime.

EVERY member of Congress, and the President, VP and all their staff should have to endure this once. In fact, I think mandatory naked screeners and pat downs for Congress should be the order of the day. I bet the next day it would all be over.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Well I see the closing of American Society continues apace

so what happens when the cavity bomb comes om board Joe?

Oh and nice to know that oath to protect and defend was just a suggestion...

Oh and for those screaming get rid of TSA, the PRIVATE rent a cops will do the same for half the wage, m'kay?

I ain't flying if I can avoid it, PERIOD, and if that crashes the fucking economy, in the aggregate that is, oh well.

And yes I know you DO SEE and READ the threat assessments, but jesus age there are ways to deal with it... and junking the Fourth Ammerman is not it.

[Dawson Leery]

20. Biden has a poor record when it comes to defending civil liberties.

If Biden were ever appointed to a court, I would fully support a filibuster to prevent his confirmation.

[howaboutme]

22. Why does Biden defend a policy that many Americans hate?

As if Democrats after 11-2 need to take the wrong side on the TSA "gropedown" issue? Why can't he keep his mouth shut or say something that Americans want to hear? The right wingers are all over this and Democrats will pay.

As others here have said I despise having a public official that benefits from the special rules of the road for the elite telling us that a "gropedown" or love pat is good for us.

Biden is sometimes a politician without any political sense.

Why didn't he say what people want to hear such as we know it is bad and we need to work to change it?

Or even better - The single most important thing he could have said is .... we need to determine why they hate us and arrive at a political solution. That is the single most important important discussion needed in today's world. We can't afford not having it.

[AzDar]

23. Ol' Joey is wrong about quite a few things... this issue, and that horror-show of a Bankruptcy Bill

are two that come to mind immediately. :puke: