one man caused the groping of americans. absurd.

[spanone]

The president said such methods are needed after what happened December 25, 2009, when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria allegedly boarded a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit with a bomb hidden in his underwear.

Abdulmutallab reportedly failed to set off the bomb, which metal detectors didn't detect, though his attempt led to airport screening procedures that have caused a holiday travel uproar.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/20/obama.tsa/index.html?hpt=T1

[ChoralScholar]

1. This issue puts the President between a rock and a hard place.

And the problem is stupid people who don't understand how complicated of an issue this whole thing is.

If President Obama moves one direction, then he doesn't care about the safety of Americans.
If President Obama moves the other direction, then he doesn't care about Americans' civil liberties.

I hate the TSA procedures as much as everyone else... they're disgusting, and free rein for rent-a-cops to assault people.

But, how can we solve the problem and keep ourselves safe at the same time.

[Chulanowa]

2. BUT WE HATES HIM WE DOES! Gollum, gollum!

Filthies, filthies Obamases!

[spanone]

5. says who?

[Chulanowa]

7. Sadly, providing a list would be considered a "call-out"

And the size of the thing would probably bog down DU's bandwidth anyway.

[spanone]

8. this thread is not about hating Obama. it's about what i think is an absurd policy.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Chulanowa]

11. And what, pray tell, are "my people"?

:popcorn:

[readmoreoften]

13. People who reduce life to Obama Loving and Obama Hating.

As if Obama was even a major factor in any of this.

[Smarmie Doofus]

30. Indeed. n/t

[Chulanowa]

39. Is this the only thread on this topic you've read? n/t

[pecwae]

23. OFFS.

Enough already.

[tavalon]

32. I don't hate him

I think he's performing well below his astounding ability. Why? That's the question I'd like answered. He's getting plenty of stuff done but he doesn't act like a strong leader. Why?

[treestar]

45. No he is being strong here

Insisting on something you don't want.

Isn't that brave? I mean according to DU it is spineless to do anything that could lead to disapproval and fewer votes, even if it is good for the country.

Here Obama is doing that.

We can't have it both ways here. If it is strong to insist on an unpopular policy for the people's good, that has to apply across the board.

[LisaL]

3. Millions of people get out every morning, get into their cars

and not everyone of them will come home alive. If our government was so worried about safety, why don't they ban gun ownership? Put Breathalyzer in every car? Decrease speed limits? Make us wear helmets all the time when we are outside? Etc, etc, etc?
WTF is so special about planes? There is no such thing as absolute safety, and groping a law abiding citizen in order to allow that citizen on the plane is not an answer.

[Chulanowa]

9. That's what I'm wondering, too

A well-placed bomb on a train could end up VASTLY more tragic than on a plane. City busses? Oh yeah - I can just imagine the carnage that could happen if some lunatic blew up a metro in the middle of White Center.

Planes are basically sacrosanct because a train didn't smash into the WTC. It's senseless and meaningless on every level except that of irrational panic. We go "OMG PLANES!"

[saigon68]

28. Well a lot of BOND TRADERS at Kantor Fitzgerald got their asses SMOKED

That was the real reason-----

[tavalon]

17. You're looking at it the wrong way

They aren't interested in our safety, only our obedience. We're being trained, just like mice in mazes. Before long, hearing about cops tazering kids, grandparents, invalids, disabled people won't even seem strange. Won't even be commented on. Before long, people won't even notice that their children have to walk through metal detectors to get to school and that those same children are subjected to random locker searches and drug sniffing dogs. Before long, people won't even care that they have to take their shoes off at airport security...........

One more brick in the wall. I'm just amazed at the outcry, finally! It's about fucking time!

[hobbit709]

26. Exactly!

They want obedient, nonquestioning serfs.

[kas125]

41. I think you've hit the nail on the head - it's about obedience, not

safety. If people being felt up at the airport is so necessary because of the failed underwear bomber, then why did they wait almost an entire year before they decided to start doing it?

[TBF]

44. Either that or someone is making a boatload of money off the government

contract that was awarded to make those machines.

[kas125]

56. It's probably a combination of both, but it surely isn't because

they're afraid of another underwear bomber. It's one more thing to condition us to giving away a bit of freedom without thinking about it and it's making money for Chertoff and who knows who else. If it was about the underwear bomber they'd have started the groping of genitals last January.

[treestar]

46. There are rules for a lot of that.

Have to wear seat belts, etc.

Planes are very special. They are self contained, once you are in a plane and it takes off, your life depends on that one vehicle.

Also the destruction they can cause if anything goes wrong. My car can break down without my getting killed. An airplane breaks down in any way and it's curtains. Terrorists know that, why else do they choose them to attack?

Also the extensive damage on the ground. Reading about Flight 93 yesterday, it was lucky no one was killed on the ground. Even not making the terrorists' target, it still could have crashed in a populated area.

[Fumesucker]

61. That's bullshit, airplanes break quite often with no loss of life..

Indeed, a plane landed today in New York with the wing on fire and no one was killed.

[spanone]

4. i don't think we solve the problem by allowing one individual to change our standards of freedom

this will only embolden the terrorists imho

[Yeahyeah]

6. All underpants should be required to have a surveillance camera in them.

That'll fix it.

[gateley]

12. He should have insisted they come up with a compromise. Unfortunately

his anti-terrorism "experts" assured him this was the only and best way to guard against this in the future.

He's instructed them to keep refining it and looking for less invasive/intrusive approaches, but even if they do come up with something, 1) he won't get credit for it, people will just think he knuckled under to pressure, 2) he'll be criticized for "wasting" all the money it cost to implement this and to buy the scanners.

[readmoreoften]

14. No, actually. It's not complicated.

Any idiot could've had an "underwear bomb" before 9-11. What about when a woman has a "womb bomb" are we going to have gynecologists at checkpoints? And why just aircraft. Can't an underwear bomb kill hundreds on a train just as easily?

This is irrationalism at its finest. Taking a good hard look at the Bush Doctrine in play might be the United States' first avenue to try to make the nation more secure. They don't hate us for our freedom. They hate us because we've blown up their brother's wedding and blown off their infant cousin's right arm.

[grahamhgreen]

18. He is sworn to protect our constitution, not Americans. because that is the best way

To preserve America.

[Laelth]

43. Hear, hear! n/t

-Laelth

[Xicano]

19. No it doesn't

Its the government's job to protect our freedoms every bit as much as it is to provide security. You don't sacrifice one to protect the other. That's no different than killing the patient to cure their cancer. Even if you are successful with your operation you are still going to be a failure.

All this is, is about money and more authoritarianism. There ain't no reason why we cannot train and deploy bomb sniffing dogs or those bomb sniffing machines.

eom.

[sabrina 1]

20. No it doesn't. All he has to do is what is right and let the chips

fall where they may. And since he was elected to represent us, that is who he needs to serve. These machines are useless in terms of stopping terror, and he forgot to tell the public the real story of the underwear bomber, conveniently.

I am sick and tired of all the excuses made for these politicians. He either represents us and opposes any abuses perpetrated on the people or he doesn't. If he does what is right and loses his job, he's still going to do just fine and history will straighten the record out.

This is NOT about him, it is about this country and its future. I am also sick to death of the importance placed on politicians in this country. They are not god, they are guys who interviewed for a pretty good job, no better or worse than the rest of us. We don't have royalty here, although sometimes you would never know that.

What is happening is wrong and he should be willing to stop these abuses that he would never expose his own wife and children to. No good leader asks others to do anything he himself is not willing to do.

[TexasObserver]

33. "the problem is stupid people who don't understand how complicated of an issue this whole thing is."

If you're referring to TSA and their advocates regarding this issue, you are right.

If you're referring to those who correctly oppose such intrusions, you aren't.

[ChoralScholar]

59. I'm referring to people who think this all has a simple answer. EOM

[_ed_]

34. There is no issue

The President's oath of office is to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies..."

There is not one word in the oath of office about keeping us safe. Not one. His sole duty is to support and defend the Constitution. There is no choice. There is no "hard place" to be stuck in. Just the oath.

[TheKentuckian]

35. How are we "keeping ourselves safe" now? At best this is to provide the illusion of safety

[LWolf]

37. It's not that hard. Franklin explained it more than 200 years ago.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Here are two free clues for you

Pat downs would not have caught him either...a little guy with our paws and a nose, on the other hand...

Oh and second hint, never mind Israel has the highest security, it's been downgraded by us because they refuse to engage in security theater...what one learns readying the Mexican press. Incidentally so has mexico for the same reason...

Care to connect dots?

Oh and lastly who's getting very rich out of this?

I hate to point this out, but real experts are laughing at us, not with us...oh and 22 men won the war.

[Laelth]

49. I could care less about the safety issue because it is a negligible risk.

50,000 people/year (roughly) die in motor vehicle accidents, but you don't see us sacrificing the 4th Amendment and allowing children to be fondled just to make road travel safer.

Our current policy re. air travel is insane.

-Laelth

[TorchTheWitch]

51. No it doesn't

Put Obama between a rock and a hard place. All he has to do is what's right and what every Pres. had no problem doing on this issue since before Bush. It's not complicated at all. Put in place a security apparatus that WORKS and isn't entirely reactive theater as other countries have been able to do, don't violate the peoples' 4th Amendment rights and understand that regardless of what you do a terrorist may still slip through the cracks. And maybe biggest of all stop doing those things that gave the US a terrorist problem to begin with.

Planes have been hijacked and buildings bombed or attempts made of both and nothing like this bullshit was ever ANYONE'S thought in what to do about it. We used to recognize that life comes with a certain amount of risk and that attempting wrap yourself up in a bubble in trying to eliminate every risk is stupid, pointless and no way to live. And yes, we still felt that way all during the Bush years and LAUGHED at Freepers that insisted everything changed after 9/11 while they hid under their beds with their bottled water and cans of tuna after duct taping plastic on their windows. The ONLY reason people are using the same arguments we used to laugh at THEM for is because Obama and his administration is OURS.

[Pacifist Patriot]

55. Easy....

Defer to the Constitution which prohibits unreasonable search without probable cause.

Let's see. How many planes have exploded with the security measures in place prior to the body scanners and enhanced pat downs. Thinking. Thinking. Thinking. Astronomically few given the number of planes in the air each day.

[Timmy5835]

57. Simple......

Do what Israel does.

[notesdev]

15. Wrong "one man"

The "one man" who caused this was the person at the State Department who gave the go-ahead for that bomber to get on that plane, which the existing security procedures would not have allowed.

[sabrina 1]

22. Exactly, and it is disingenuous of Obama to emulate Bush and

try to deceive and scare the American people with this story, when HE KNOWS exactly where the failure in security was. And it had nothing to do with screening. They KNEW this guy was a threat and escorted him onto the plane. Who does Obama think he is talking to? We figured out Bush's lies, does he really think he can fool us? It is insulting really.

[jmondine]

16. Not so absurd. In fact, the man who caused it is currently on a book tour.

Maybe the book should be called, "Insertion Points".

[Hannah Bell]

21. no, that's just the cover story. planes have been actually *blown up* before,

but it didn't lead to world-wide groping at airports.

[DemReadingDU]

24. Air travelers are allowing themselves to be searched without a warrant

And submitting to be groped and fondled without a search warrant.

What will be next? Submitting to be searched, groped and fondled entering a shopping mall? going to a sports stadium?
Without a search warrant.

Then comes the police searching your house, without a warrant.

The illegal searching and groping of air travelers is so wrong. It needs to be stopped now.

[eridani]

25. Has anyone noticed that the SUCCESSFUL bombs in planes--

--were stashed in the cargo? That after 9/11, alert passengers have squelched every attempted bombing by a passenger? Yet we grope passengers and don't check luggage. Why?

[KharmaTrain]

27. We Always Fight The Last War

The overreaction that happens anytime a terror threat happens leads to some kind of "action" that is there to prevent what already happened vs. what could. The could is a real bitch cause someone who is determined is going to find a vulnerability in the system and exploit it. While its important to be vigilant about threats the over-the-top panic and reaction has turned our air system into a torture chamber.

After the shoe bomber began the silly practice of taking off shoes, I privately joked about what would happen if someone came up with a tampon bomb. Now I'm not laughing anymore.

[piratefish08]

29. the government doesn't want the best solution.

they want the best CORPORATE solution.

because if somebody isn't making a shit ton of $$$, then it's not really a solution at all, is it?

[Canuckistanian]

31. In a way, he succeeded

He ramped that fear up a notch and the government overcompensated. Again.

[slackmaster]

36. And one man caused Americans to be forced to take off their shoes

[fishwax]

38. if that's what made them necessary, why are they only getting such traction now?

And why are the scanners that prompt these absurd and intrusive patdowns only available at some airports?

[Laelth]

42. Only one man is RESPONSIBLE for this groping.

His name is Barack Obama. He could order TSA to immediately end this practice and to never use the nudie scanners again, if he wanted. Instead, he has publicly endorsed these practices. Obama owns this national PR disaster and is fully responsible for the violation of the civil rights of many Americans.

His tone-deafness is inexcusable. I hope he reverses his policy on this issue immediately, for the sake of us all, but my hope for this President is very limited these days.

-Laelth

[treestar]

47. -30000

Guess who would get blamed for the number of deaths in any incident?

[Laelth]

48. Americans should tolerate groping so poor, President Obama won't get blamed?

Count me out. I hold him responsible for the groping that's occurring now. That's worse than the unreasonable fear upon which this policy is based.

I will not allow the government to fondle my children just to protect the Preseident's reputation.

-Laelth

[treestar]

50. Er, if you get to blame him for one thing and not another, that is not

consistent, no? If he suspends the groping then any bomb is not his fault, capiche?

[Laelth]

53. The bomb won't be his fault unless he ordered it planted.

And that will be the case whether he orders fondling or not. Now, a terrorist attack might be partially Obama's fault for continuing the wars that fuel terrorism, but, again, that has no relationship to state-sanctioned fondling.

-Laelth

[treestar]

54. It is not fondling.

But you can't have it both ways. If there is a bombing then Obama is not to blame. End of story.

No "he could have gotten it had he frisked that terrorist."

[kentuck]

52. I always thought he was probably CIA?

He was sentenced to life in prison. Does anyone know where he presently resides??

[TBF]

58. Oh he's probably with Osama making video tapes in a cave somewhere.

:crazy:

[Initech]

60. I hate the TSA.

A man "allegedly" makes a chemical bomb (which has been disproven that it's impossible to do 1,0000 times on the internet) so they ban liquids in carry-on baggage.

A man hides a bomb in his underwear, so they start searching our underwear.

The no fly list gets confusing, so they start making us input all kinds of personal information when we book travel.

Makes you wonder where this is going.