So if new security measures are tighter, but they turn law abiding people against TSA

[CreekDog]

...are we safer?

isn't not being hated by the people you're protecting a big part of being effective in protecting them?

[laughingliberal]

1. Yes, but I don't think this is about protecting us. nt

[RandomThoughts]

2. Yep, and that is the wake up point that can be made.

[TheKentuckian]

3. Almost no chance it is about that at all.

[sabrina 1]

4. It's about money, not security. The 'enhanced patdowns'

are meant to force people NOT to opt out of the virtual rape scanners. Because of the controversy going on for years over them, they were not able to sell enough of them until they finally agreed that people who objected to them, could opt out and accept a patdown instead. Naturally people opted for the patdown. This could have led to the conclusion that the machines were not necessary and that would have interfered with Michael Chertoff's and his 'fear-mongering profiteer buddies' profits.

So, a few months ago, the TSA announced some new rules about an 'enhanced pat-down' but would not release details. Many people believe that they are deliberately abusive, that they wanted word of that to get out, to force people to opt for the machines.

It's always, all about money. It never was about security. If security was the issue, 'keeping people safe', we would have a national healthcare system, saving the lives of 44,000 Americans a year.

There would be breathalizers in every automobile, curfews to keep people home and safe from crimes at night etc. etc. The chances of death by terrorist are among the lowest of threats to the lives of Americans. This is all about money.

[Life Long Dem]

5. That's my thinking over this.

Get people against the pat downs so they will take the alternative. Which points to money. TSA are being allowed to go overboard in their groping to offend people.