Mr. President, being groped by government agents is not "frustrating".

[Barack_America]

Delayed flights, luggage searches, being nickel and dimed by the airline industry; these things are "frustrating".

Having your genitals fondled by government agents in full public view is not "frustrating", it's:
-Humiliating
-Insulting
-Enraging
-Shocking
-Mortifying

...and so on...

And I'm sorry, Mr. President, but if you don't recognize this fact ASAP and change this policy before holiday travel starts, well, I suggest you enjoy the remainder of your term.

Oh, and just as a correction, there was no "Christmas Day bombing" last year, there was a miserably failed bombing ATTEMPT. Seems an important distinction to make, unless of course, your goal is to overstate the event.


For those unaware of the President's comments in defense of the new TSA policy:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40289750/ns/travel/

[saigon68]

1. Its also criminal to Grope a child's Anus and Penis

[jaxx]

13. That seems to be over kill on the part of the people who are influencing

the anger at TSA. I know this has been posted before, but for some reason people are choosing to ignore it. Why would that be?


"We did not do frankly a very good job of communicating initially that there would be an exemption, if you will, from the thorough pat-down for children 12 and under. That was under review when the policy came out, and so we have clarified that. It does not apply to children 12 and under."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/11/16/131364772/tsa-head-defends-enhanced-pat-downs-and-safety-of-scanners

[LisaL]

15. Children under 12 are still patted down, except with modifications.

But TSA refuses to say what these modifications are.
Furthermore, we don't consider a 13 year old an adult, do we?

[jaxx]

19. Ignoring the facts gets us nowhere.

"Yeah but"......it's the downfall of this board.

[Rex]

31. You mean like in this video?

I think the only people suffering from a downfall are the people who embrace fascism on this board by calling it something else. Yeah but, indeed. :eyes:

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. What video?

Seriously, I haven't bothered searching for a video of the actual pat down yet, and there's been none in this thread so far. So which video are you referring to?

[LisaL]

46. Well maybe you should bother before you post.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. Mayeb the other DUer shouldn't say "this video" when there isn't one showing the search

I'm not searching through endless YouTube videos with misleading titles saying 'grope' and 'fondle' that then turn out to be a normal pat-down. YouTubers are unreliable; if a DUer actually links to a video and says it properly shows the new routine that is worse than before, then I'll watch it.

[azureblue]

115. this video, for those who are too lazy to search for it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJXv2JDRK2g

[LisaL]

47. I fail to understand the meaning of your post.

Who do you think is ignoring the facts?
"Child pat-down: If a child is 12 or younger and unable to proceed through the body scanner alone or opts out, then he or she is subject to what the TSA calls "a modified pat-down" search. If the child is older than 12 and opts out of the scanner, he or she is subject to an "enhanced pat-down. " The TSA, citing security reasons, has not provided details on either type of pat-down. But the enhanced pat-down is widely understood to include closer examination of genital areas. It is unclear whether the modified pat-down includes the genital areas."
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/19/news/la-trb-tsa-scanners-20101119

[LaurenG]

64. The fact is the TSA did take off a child's shirt and forced a woman to remove

her prosthetic breast among other things. I realize the comment you are referring to was over the top but the TSA is also over the top. Its a shame that a few around here take no issue with it and are willing to go silently into the next step of the dark night.

We need to be screaming about this until it stops.

[tavalon]

99. Well, my kid is going to be sixteen next year

but he has severe autism and has the emotional maturity of about a five year old. I won't have him subjected to backscatter xray (pornoscan) and if any TSA agent thinks they are going to grope him, well, if his left hook doesn't take them out, my right hook will. Needless, to say, we will not travel by air until this travesty is put to rest. I was angry when this was first rolled out and I was just a bit ahead of the rest of America but I'm more than willing to let them join in.

This is one step too far. Actually, the whole dog and pony TSA circus is a bit too far but this is finally getting through to America.

[stevenleser]

136. Not to mention that if you agree to the scan, you arent patted down at any age...

people like to forget to mention that.

[sabrina 1]

68. Interesting, they had plenty of time. They have a blog, they

announced this 'new, enhanced pat-down' on their blog in August. They were questioned about it, by hundreds of commenters but refused to clarify what 'enhanced' meant. That led people to believe, being that 'enhanced' is now a euphemism for 'abuse' in this country, that they were afraid to tell the public what their intentions were.

It also led people to believe that the new 'abusive/enhanced patdowns' would be used to discourage people from opting out of the already very, very controversial Rapiscans because while they have tried to sell these
abhorrent machines to a terrified nation, they have not been successful thanks to the many challenges they were met with by Civil Rights groups.

If people opted out of the machines, that render them useless. So people began to wonder if they intended to make the opt-out so invasive and word got around, they would choose what might begin to look like the 'lesser evil'. That seems to always be our choice these days, 'the lesser evil'.

When stories of the abuses began to surface, if they were intended to make the machines more popular, clearly it didn't work.

As of the underwear bomber being used as yet another scare tactic to sell more expensive 'security' products to a sufficiently terrified and compliant population, that is another story altogether. That bomber was on the terror watch list. He was helped to get on a plane without a passport, despite the fact that he was a known threat. I fail to see why the use of these machines are attached to what Obama is calling the Christmas Day bomber.

Scanners would not have prevented him getting on a plane as apparently there was no effort to stop him, even without a passport and with his record. We are being deceived again. And the only possible reason, since it is not about security, has to be money. Chertoff, whose own failure to protect the American in NOLA should have caused him to be prosecuted, has been selling these machines from the minute the story of the underwear bomber aired, WITHOUT disclosing the financial stake he has in the sale of those machines.

I hope people are now ready to say 'enough'. It seems they are although efforts are being made to divide the people down party lines once again. I doubt it will work this time. Abusing children is one step too far whether you are a Democrat or a Republican imho.

[Barack_America]

83. Excellent post.

:thumbsup:

[tigereye]

92. you make excellent points- ths system failed to tag the "real bad guy"

and now everyone has to go through these ludicrous scans. It's like Kafka or something.

[DirkGently]

113. Great on all points.

[ProudDad]

123. And the "underwear bomber" was in a flight originating OVERSEAS

where michael chertoff's money making machines will NEVER be installed nor "enhanced pat-downs" tolerated... :grr:

Ah, Life in the belly of the beast, the seat of the dying Empire...

[AllyCat]

72. If it doesn't apply to everyone, it shouldn't apply to ANYONE

What is to stop some "hijacker" from planting a bomb/weapon/device on a minor child that is under 13. I'm sorry. "Clarifying" what they said to this board does not make this okay. It is NOT okay to physically search a 13-17 year old in this way. I don't think it's appropriate for ANYONE, but it is certainly NOT okay to do this to a teenager or younger child.

[abelenkpe]

124. Difficult to ignore with video of kids

under 12 being patted down and asked to remove clothing. But hey, if you think it's fine a dandy go ahead and travel with your small children and subject them to that reality.

[Mortos]

109. What is up with you and children's anuses Saigon68?

Every post on this topic you throw in something about the TSA touching or probing children's anuses. It is really pathetic and, when challenged, you don't provide one shred of truth that your assertion is true. In fact, in one post, your proof was a linked picture of a comic that is obviously parody.

The uses of the words grope, molest, fondle, and others are rhetoric designed to inflame people emotionally. It is not an accurate description of what is going on and no one has provided any evidence that any TSA agent is experiencing sexual gratification from hand searching hundreds of people a day.

Have you seen the average American? Who would want to put their hands, even with gloves, into the cracks and crevices of the average fat sweaty American slob?

This projection of sexual assault is unfair to the TSA screeners and to people who are victims of actual sexual assault. Pat downs are not rape and those people that continue to use this rhetoric weaken their argument against them.

Argue on the merits if you want but using inflammatory inaccurate words is a cheap tactic, one perfected by the right wing echo chamber.

[CreekDog]

2. It's not frustrating, it's wrong

Obama is wrong on this.

[Barack_America]

12. Absolutely. Also "degrading".

There are so many words to describe this policy; however, "frustrating" doesn't cut it.

[CreekDog]

16. yep

but we're just complaining because we want Republicans to win, right? :wtf:

[AllyCat]

73. Degrading to the groper and the gropee.

[lunatica]

3. After Bush and 9/11 every President will be terrified if another terror attack happens

This is at the core of the reason for TSA body scans and intrusive body pat downs. Elected officials are basically paralyzed with fear that it'll happen on their watch.

[Autumn]

50. Well I doubt any other President, especially a Democrat

would ignore a PDB on terrorism. Bush was an idiot. Obama needs to get over the fear and quit using it.

[KansDem]

111. How many warnings did Bush have?

Didn't the Clinton team warn the incoming Bush team that Osama was the no. 1 threat?

Weren't there many reports from foreign intelligence agencies that something was in the mix?

Didn't Bush receive a PDB on August 6 that Osama was determined to strike inside the US? Then he went on a 30-day vacation?

Wasn't two of the attackers shadowed by the FBI for a year prior to the attack?

We had 16 intelligence agencies in the US prior to 9/11:

Members

The official seals of the 16 U.S. Intelligence Community members.The IC consists of 16 members (also called elements). The Central Intelligence Agency is an independent agency of the United States government. The other 15 elements are offices or bureaus within federal executive departments. The IC is led by the Director of National Intelligence, whose office, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), is not listed as a member of the IC.

Independent agencies
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
United States Department of Defense
Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency (AFISRA)
Army Military Intelligence (MI)
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA)
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
National Security Agency (NSA)
Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)
United States Department of Energy
Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (OICI)
United States Department of Homeland Security
Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A)
Coast Guard Intelligence (CGI)
United States Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
United States Department of State
Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)
United States Department of the Treasury
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI)<6>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community

...and not one of them saw it coming?

If anything, Bush should have been impeached for incompetence...

[Autumn]

114. Yes to every single question. but they have

learned that fear controls the people. It's hard to see a Democratic President, who we know is intelligent, using the same old shit. Check the fucking cargo and people who come here from other countries. What don't they get about that? Why is it ok for Obama to use the same bullshit and improve on it to erode our liberties?

[tavalon]

102. Nope, I don't think this has a damn thing to do with security

If it did, they would be doing 100% scans on cargo (UPS, USPS DHL, etc). They don't. This is incremental training of Americans to submit to more and more invasive behavior on the part of our government. When they decided to make Airports the training ground for brownshirts and fascism is up for question. That they have done it is not.

This isn't about safety, it's about obedience.

[Aaria]

110. This has everything ablout control and making money. Google Haskell Truth. There was a couple....

that watched the young man being walked around security by a sharp dressed man and he wound up on the plane with his pants on fire. The whole thing was a set up. http://www.lewrockwell.com/pr/haskell-truth-flight253.html

[KansDem]

112. "This has everything about control and making money."

I don't think it a coincidence that Michael Chertoff, former head of Homeland Security, now represents Rapiscan, the company placing these invasive scanners in airports.

Could this be the scenario?"

1) Chertoff sees a goldmine in employing these million-dollar scanners in hundreds of airports;
2) Public objects to being scanned;
3) "Homeland Security" decides to grope breasts and genitals as an "alternative" to scanning;
4) Public decides scanners aren't so bad after all.

And it does help to have an occasional "terrorist" be caught just before disaster hits.

[Aaria]

135. If one doesn't come around soon enough , they'll send one. Just wait.

[gkhouston]

127. Why should they be? Bush got his sorry ass re-selected and 911 was his effing fault.

No matter what precautions we take, something could happen. We need to not be so freakin' paranoid that we give up our fundamental rights. We're not even doing this in an intelligent way. Are we screening luggage and cargo well? Are we protecting our ports? Hell, no. So why do this?

[HipChick]

4. For those with reading comprehension issues...

It's not different from what Hilary said..but Obama bad, Hilary good..media spins and the shepple fall for it everytime


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=528848&mesg_id=528884

[Barack_America]

9. You are suggesting he was misquoted?

He twice referred to the policies as being "frustrating" or causing "frustration".

[HipChick]

10. and that policies need to be constantly re-evaluated?

[Barack_America]

11. Um, he said that the policy will continue.

So no "re-evaluation" at this time in response to the massive public uproar. Possibly because the President, who admits he is exempt from the policy, thinks Americans are merely "frustrated".

[Tx4obama]

76. The AP article proves that Obama wants a less intrusive way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=528848&mesg_id=530118

[Barack_America]

84. And perhaps if he understood it was more than merely "frustrating" he would press harder.

Or, probably more likely, he already does understand and decided to describe it as "frustrating" in order to downplay the response.

Unfortunately (for him), this situation seems not to be one that will be downplayed easily, nor should it be.

[de novo]

21. I really don't understand bringing Hillary into this? She isn't President.

So they are essentially on the same page. So what? It's still the wrong page.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. So did Biden

And your point?

So did Mr. Pistole and Secretary Napolitano...care me to mention the rest?

Go out of way to justify?

[superduperfarleft]

55. What does Hillary have to do with anything?

Is that the new talking point out today, calling anyone who disagrees with this policy a PUMA?

I'd suggest that you and your ilk should get over the primaries. Both Obama and Hillary technically won, and other than the three idiot PUMAs left in the world, no one is still interested in fighting about except you guys.

[Catherina]

61. WTF kind of alternate universe logic is that? n/t

[gateley]

66. EVERYBODY in his administration (or any President's) will be

singing the same song. If someone hasn't sung yet, it's because they haven't been asked the question.

[bluetrain]

75. Reading comprehension fail, much?

[Hawkowl]

5. Wire his mouth shut

Every time Obama opens his mouth he sticks his foot in it. I don't think we have ever witnessed such a politically tone deaf president in modern times. Yes, W said all sorts of stupid shit, but nothing politically disadvantageous to him. Just stupid shit that every day voting MORANS identified with and chuckled about.

[katandmoon]

7. +1

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. +2

[KittyWampus]

29. Oh please. 99% of the time it's a butchered/partial quote fed to you by ratfucking

trolls and corporate-toadying Media Whores whose purpose is to get you pissed off.

Yes, about 1% of the time Obama says something unfortunate.

[Hawkowl]

32. Nonsense

His actions back up his sticking his foot in his mouth. THAT is the problem. Groping will continue is the quote, and groping will continue is the action. THAT is the problem. They are not misquotes, it is just Obama letting slip what he really thinks. Another example is his "compromise more" speech after the midterms. He is politically out of touch. He may always have been out of touch. The dems could've run a ham sandwich against McCain/Palin and pulled out a victory in 2008.

[Barack_America]

60. Sometimes I'm left wondering who I voted for.

Was it Axelrod? Plouffe? Or a completely fictionalized character?

[Catherina]

62. A completely fictionalized character. A triumph of modern marketing. n/t

[Barack_America]

69. Yeah. That's pretty much the conclusion I've come to as well.

Ah, the sad realization you've been made a fool of.

[Lorien]

70. Yep. nt

[tigereye]

95. what would you do?

[tigereye]

93. is this really the largest of his problems? Seriously?

[superduperfarleft]

56. But wait, didn't Hillary say the same thing?

You guys should really get your stories straight before posting...

[readmoreoften]

65. +1

[gateley]

67. Hawkowl, he's the

POTUS and there are things he has to say and things he can't say.

You are way off track with the "every time Obama..."

If you're going to level those charges, you need to back them up with proof.

(Spoken by a true Bidenite who earned her chops defending Biden's gaffe reputation. :7)

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. K&R

[barbtries]

8. i really hope you put this in a letter to the president.

i would add - as i said in my letter to the president, written this morning - that it is a violation of privacy and dignity.

i'm glad to see i'm not alone in this outrage.

[Alameda]

17. the fact is these proceedures do NOT make us safer, in fact

they expose us to definite health threats. Not just the ones getting the scans, there is ambient radiation all around the area, and we have no idea what the long range health effects of that will be. Not to even begin to get into the psychological damage of having to be abused and humiliated in such a way.

[mzmolly]

18. It's sexual assault,

in most states.

[tigereye]

96. is it really?

Seriously? I think the scans and patdowns are way over the top (and the TSA over-reacts to everything anyway) - but would these technically be considered sexual assault?

[james0tucson]

104. is it really?

>but would these technically be considered sexual assault?

In some states, yes. The 13 year old cannot consent to it, the parents cannot consent on their behalf, and the frisking does meet the definition of sexual assault. I haven't seen anything written that gives the individual agent any specific defense. They may be law enforcement agents, but none of the scenarios that protect LEO's can apply here, because there is no probable cause and no warrant.

[mzmolly]

118. If someone touches your

genitals or breasts, yes. That said, cops do are allowed to grope people too as others have noted. But they are supposed to have either probable cause or permission.

I don't mean to be over the top with my commentary. I do not feel that scanning is akin to a sexual assault. But I also don't think that scans are very effective in detecting things like shoe explosives. Bring in the explosive sniffing dogs, I say.

[tigereye]

133. yeah, I think that it's excessive and that there are better ways...

[mwooldri]

129. Heck yes.

Minimum: 60 months probation, 48 months worth of court ordered evening curfew.

Maximum: 26 years in a maximum security prison.

The right court, the right child, the right lawyer. Happens in private life for this.

[kestrel91316]

20. Heck, I don't even think there was a failed bombing "attempt" last Christmas.

There was a failed bombing "plot". I don't think anybody pulled a trigger or pushed a button which then failed to detonate it. I think there was just a PLAN which did not come to full fruition.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[de novo]

23. You are correct. The idiot had a substance that could have been explosive.

However, he didn't have a detonator. He had no way to actually make it explode. These new measures add nothing to security, but does greatly elevate the visibility of fear.

[Blue State Blues]

26. there was a "plot" that was foiled BY OTHER PASSENGERS

and the underpants bomber wannabe should never have been allowed on the flight.

[soryang]

52. His father was a major defense contractor

US intel deliberately let him in the country "for investigation purposes." They've admitted that. It was a set up, to sell this terra, terra, terra crap.

[icnorth]

91. Not only did they deliberately let him into the country

they were informed by his father about his potential threat. In addition to letting him into the country, there is no video evidence that he ever went through security before boarding the plane.

[customerserviceguy]

90. We should have mandatory deep screening ONLY

of those who arrive here from foreign countries, whose point of origin is from a country on a list, Americans are not part of the problem.

[Angry Dragon]

22. I am going to write the White House right now and I would like to

use your words if that is okay??

[Barack_America]

27. Go for it.

I'd be honored.

[Lucian]

24. These gropings need to stop, and they need to stop now.

If I wanted to be felt up, I'd go to a bar and allow some hot chick to do it, not some large-handed TSA agent named Bill on a power trip. I'm going to refuse to fly until they change the way they search passengers. I'll take a boat to Europe if I have to.

[laughingliberal]

28. K & R nt

[Odin2005]

30. He will never get my vote ever again. this is disgusting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Now THAT's a stupid reaction

A policy of a contact body search, which, according to the NBC news report that is 'next' after the one linked to by the OP, is supported by 80% of the public, is enough to stop you voting for him, even if he's up against, say, Palin - and even if she ends up supporting it too?

Kneejerk outrage at a policy you don't like is no way to get a functioning government. You'll end up never being able to vote for anyone. And then someone else will elect a really bad politician.

[Hydra]

57. Heh

Way to dictate principles to someone.

Go Team Homeland Security!!!

[tigereye]

97. nicely said.

[sabrina 1]

126. Those polls were taken before the public knew what was going on.

No surprise the complicit media would attempt to manipulate public opinion, just as they did regarding the lies about Iraq.

All polls taken in the past week that I have seen AND participated in, are now as high as 90% opposed to these machines and pat-downs.

Most are followed by hundreds of outraged comments, including on the TSA's own blog.

Did you believe the lies the media told about Iraq? I don't watch the U.S. media, which is wholly owned by Corporations.

These 'security' measures are for profit and nothing else. Any official who would force Airport Workers, pilots etc, to risk cancer, which is a high probability for those who have to do this every day, does NOT care about the safety and well-being of the American public.

Obama took the CEO of one of the two manufacturers of those virtual rape machines to India with him. Michael Chertoff is selling these machines and Janet Napolitano used millions of dollars of the stimulus money to buy and install these grotesque excuses for security. And all this, despite the fact that for years, civil rights groups have succeeded in stopping their use.

So now, this government has ignored the will of the people and chosen to abuse the traveling public, FOR PROFIT. Any other excuse is a lie, plain and simple.

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. I'm saying the "I'll never vote for him again" reaction is over the top; as are your comparisons

No, this is nowhere near as big a problem as the invasion of Iraq. And "virtual rape machines" is a phrase that is both over the top, and diminishes the problem of actual rape.

And no, it's not 'just for profit'. It's an excess of caution, because governments are scared of being accused "you didn't do enough to protect us" when the next successful terrorist bomb goes off. There is a good case for saying "we have to balance the risk of a bomb against individual freedom; it's not worth going as far as these personal searches". But there's no profit in making the TSA pat people down in intimate places.

Can you link to those polls? I hope you mean proper polls, not just internet "click here to register your outrage" questions.

[sabrina 1]

131. If the commenter is sincere in his/her statement that s/he will not

vote for the president, it is definitely not 'over the top'. It is a statement of his/her intentions.

Since I did not compare the Iraq War to the abusive security measures, except wrt to the press coverage of the lies, I'm not sure why you think I did.

You may believe it is not 'for profit', but you are wrong. This issue of these 'virtual rape machines', and that is my opinion, and the opinion of many people who have experienced them, has been going on for years. Perhaps you were not aware of that. They have been successfully opposed by experts on security, by civil rights organizations, by public health officials ever since they were first brought to the attention of the public. That goes back at least as far as 2004.

War profiteers, 'terror' and 'fear' profiteers, like Michael Chertoff, Rudi Giuliani both failures on security themselves, have supported their use, and without revealing, in the case of Chertoff how much profit he stands to gain from their use.

One poll from CBS surveying a little over 1,000 people, before the full impact of these abuses were known to the public, showed support for them, people not in possession of the facts at that time. That is no way reflective of what has been the history of opposition to these tactics and now even more so as the public learns WHY there has been so much opposition to them for years.

The EU opposed their use as recently as last January I believe, and in Britain, there was an uproar when they were introduced as a security measure, as members of Parliament declared them in violation of Britain's Child Protection laws, aside from not enhancing security. The EU also stated that they did not enhance security.

This has been a long battle for people who support the rights of innocent people in this country. They violate the 4th Amendment so clearly I am shocked that anyone, let alone any Democrat, would support them, and already lawsuits are being filed demanding their removal citing the violations of our Constitutional rights.

The stealth way in which they were bought, with tax-payer dollars, considering the opposition everywhere for so many years, is a disgrace. Even Bush was unable to do this.

As the outrage grows, and with some groups already scoring victories against their use, ie, the Pilots Unions, I have no doubt that it will be far more difficult for the media to produce any poll that supports such a flagrant violation of all that is decent, including our Constitution. I notice too that our brilliant, Corporation-supporting media which in no way represents the public, had nothing to say about the history of controversy over these machines.

Since the EU, and security experts everywhere have stated clearly that they 'do nothing to enhance security' it is very clear what the real fight on the part of Corporate America backed by such luminaries as Michael Chertoff, is all about. As always, as with the wars we are involved in, it is ALL about money.

One more point. The health risks, especially for those required to use them on a regular basis are by no means minor according to health experts. What government would claim to be 'protecting the health and well-being' of its citizens, while forcing them to risk their health for the sake of selling these very expensive machines? People need to start using logic. And I'm happy to say that judging by the increasing opposition to them, people are doing just that, on all sides of the political spectrum.

Like so many others, I am not flying anywhere until our civil rights are restored. Trains and automobiles are still free from government oppression. But not for long, if the public does not stop them right here.

[Beerball1]

33. disgust

I have grown to despise this gutless, windbag of a president.

[sufrommich]

37. Nice. I'm sure you'll make plenty of new friends here on DU.

:eyes:

[seafan]

34. Mr. President, we have some ideas that would be effective in countering the terrorist threat.

Obama: TSA pat-downs frustrating but necessary

MSNBC
November 20, 2010

LISBON, Portugal — President Barack Obama on Saturday acknowledged some travelers' "frustrations" with having to go through full-body pat-downs and scans at airports, but he said the enhanced security measures are necessary to keep America safe.

In response to a question at a press conference in Lisbon, where he was attending a NATO summit , the president said that the Transportation Security Administration has been "under enormous pressure" to find better ways to screen for explosives and other dangerous items ever since the attempted 2009 Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner over Detroit. In that case, a passenger with links to an al-Qaida extremist group tried to set off plastic explosives concealed in his underwear.

"I understand people’s frustrations, and what I’ve said to the TSA is that you have to constantly refine and measure whether what we’re doing is the only way to assure the American people’s safety. And you also have to think through are there other ways of doing it that are less intrusive," Obama said.

"But at this point, TSA in consultation with counterterrorism experts have indicated to me that the procedures that they have been putting in place are the only ones right now that they consider to be effective against the kind of threat that we saw in the Christmas Day bombing."

.....

Bombing attempt, Mr. President.


Notwithstanding what you have said to the TSA, here is what the American people are saying to you:


Until and unless the US military, which you now command, and the associated growing horde of symbiotic private contractors muscling in, halt the ever widening imperialist boot print and unwanted invasion and occupation around the world, and in the Middle East in particular, there is nothing that Americans can expect from your administration that will increase their personal safety and that of our entire nation.


And that bodes ill for all of us.

[Pacifist Patriot]

35. I find his position shocking given his knowledge of the U.S. Constitution

How these TSA policies are not abridgment of the Fourth Amendment positively escapes me.

[Barack_America]

49. Indeed.

I am continually perplexed and amazed by this President, but not in good ways, unfortunately.

[Initech]

36. I hate to say this - but this will cement Obama as a one-termer.

Unless he actually does something about it. The people aren't going to stand for this kind of treatment - and the fact that he's actually siding with the TSA and allowing this crap to continue is absolutely mind-boggling. :argh:

[Paladin]

42. I'm Afraid You're Right.

How long before the right-wing droolers start referring to TSA activities as "Obamagrope" or something similar? Once again, Democrats will take the blame for onerous policies which have their origins in the excesses of Cheney-Bush regime. Absolutely pathetic.......

[Initech]

45. That's what is pissing me off the most.

I think most americans have really short-term memories. They forget that Bush was responsible for a lot of the shit we're going through now, yet Obama's the one getting the blame for it. And I can guarantee that if McCain had won? No one would be saying shit about it.

[Little Star]

53. Your right to a point but...

Obama is the president who is not only continuing but even advancing these Bush type policies and procedures.

[Initech]

59. Yeah I hear that. it's getting seriously frustrating.

[Hydra]

58. Obama decided to defend the practice

Like it or not, he owns it now.

And had McSame been President now, at least DU would be united in their revilement of bad policies.

[Lorien]

71. Yep. This is an issue on which everyone on the Left, Right, and in the Middle agrees

Exposing us to dangerous radiation or molesting us is NOT OK and it never will be! Whatever happened to Obama the Constitutional scholar? Forth amendment anyone?

I've said from the beginning that Obama has no intention of running for a second term. He's indicated as much a few times, but these pro-authoritarian positions of his just seal the deal. He's a placeholder until they can find another willing right wing hand puppet to install.

[Bill O Rights]

86. If this would have been rolled out before the last election...

The voter backlash would have been unbelievable.

[krabigirl]

116. I agree, however whoever else is elected will do the same thing, unless people really wake up.

[Laelth]

38. Well said. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[BlueIris]

40. Enjoy the remainder of your term, indeed. He will not support any change. nt

[Cleita]

41. In one word, it's 'traumatizing', a far

cry from frustrating.

[Barack_America]

48. Yes, that's the word I was looking for.

For some reason I was unable to come up with it at the time.

[Little Star]

54. Yes it is.

[Individualist]

44. K&R

[Catherina]

63. Rec n/t

[Swampguana]

74. Come on

I would like to hear what Obama has to say if him and his family had to go through what his "frustrated" citizens go through to take a flight. Not everyone gets their own plane.

[pnwmom]

77. Barack_America, that is your opinion. But other Americans

aren't as traumatized as you appear to be. To them, the searches might only be "frustrating" or just time-wasting. I've had two relatives and a friend who've had the new searches, and none of them thought they were a big deal -- just unfortunate.

[Rex]

78. At 85 rec, one would think you are in the minority.

[pnwmom]

79. This is, in essence, a self-selected poll -- and thus can't be

projected to a larger population. People who are upset are much more likely to post than people who aren't.

I have no trouble believing that a lot of DUers are upset about this, and there are legitimate questions about civil liberties. But I also think some of the hysteria about the pat-downs is being whipped up by people who've decided they want Obama to fail.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

81. You're wrong

I went over to freeperville and have been reading their views about this. I believe they are not just kicking up a fuss because they want to blame it all on Obama in order for him to fail. They have the same concerns we do about their civil rights being violated and many are genuinely worried a gay TSA agent is going to be feeling their genitals and this is big concern for the homophobes there. (It's one of the only things I find amusing about this).

I know there must be some people who don't mind people the TSA taking x-rays of their naked body through their clothes but is seriously offends many people. I'm deeply offended by the fact that in order to fly I have to be either inspected naked, groped or fined $11,000. I will be singled out because I have an artificial ankle.

We cannot let this go on because it will not stop at the airports. Do you understand these searches and scans are not only unhealthy but are not making us safe?

[pnwmom]

130. You think someone who disagrees with your conclusion doesn't "understand."

I do understand what you're saying. But I disagree. In my opinion -- which is just as valid as yours -- these measures will not make us completely safe, but they do make us safer. Just like locks and alarm systems don't eliminate all risk, but only some.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

134. I'm very different than you

because I value my dignity and freedom but you prefer a false sense of safety.

[PADemD]

100. I hope that neither of your two relatives were in the early stages of pregnancy.

"The possibility of severe health effects depends on the gestational age of the fetus at the time of exposure and the amount of radiation it is exposed to. Unborn babies are less sensitive during some stages of pregnancy than others. However, fetuses are particularly sensitive to radiation during their early development, between weeks 2 and 15 of pregnancy. The health consequences can be severe, even at radiation doses too low to make the mother sick. Such consequences can include stunted growth, deformities, abnormal brain function, or cancer that may develop sometime later in life."

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/prenatal.asp

[highprincipleswork]

80. To Those Who Defend This Policy

To those who would defend this policy, is there any limit to TSA precautions that you would advocate, in the name of allegedly preventing a terrorist from doing something to the plane you might happen to be on?

To what extent should we go, in order for you to feel truly safe?

Do you think there is anything, any measure, that will absolutely, 100 percent prevent any kind of terrorism from taking place on a plane?

Do you not think that crews and passengers would react differently, this time around, now that they know about 9-11?

Would you be willing to be intercepted by fighter planes, should your plane be taken hostage?

Would you be willing to be forced down or diverted or even shot down, if that meant that another terrorist act on a mass scale would not take place?

Don't you think that other people, in other parts of the world, consider us just a little bit insane to be this reactive, still, to 9-11, to the point of giving up pretty much anything for a false illusion of security?

Don't you think this will adversely affect the travel industry, especially tourism industry, but also the willingness of domestic travel?

Can you imagine how many different places in the U.S. might be subjected to these new scanners, which are held by many to pose a significant health risk, without any choice for us in the matter whatsoever?

Considering these things, wouldn't it be better for us to live without these extreme TSA measures, that do not guarantee anything and that resemble police-state activity?

[Daphne08]

82. What happened to the man we elected?

Seriously.

What happened to him?

[Bill O Rights]

85. The Underwear Bomber may have been a Covert Op

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&q=kurt+haskell+underwear+bomber&aq=1&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=Kurt+Haskell&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=d46a99aa0316a90b

GOOGLE KURT HASKELL

Haskell was an eyewitness to the Underwear Bomber episode and reports that the U/B was "escorted" onto the plane by an "Handler" Furthermore, the U/B did NOT EVEN HAVE A PASSPORT!!! How and why did they allow someone to board an International flight to America without a passport?

There is something very wrong going on with this entire issue.

The TSA has been lying to us repeatedly.

They told us that the agent would "slide their hand up the inside of the thigh until it meets resistence" No actually, many agents are placing their open hands directly on the entire genital area! There are even credible reports of MALE agents doing this to FEMALE passengers, both adult and minors.

The TSA is telling us that the X-RAY machines are safe. However, many very credible medical professionals are telling us the exact opposite.

The TSA is telling us that the GENITAL SEARCH SEXUAL ASSAULT is not punishment for refusing the X-RAY Porno-scanners. THIS IS AN OBVIOUS LIE!

Perhaps one of the most obvious reasons that the TSA is doing all of this is because Michael Chertoff, the former head of Homeland Security is making MILLIONS as these devices are being deployed around the country.

One last thing. If a terrorist is willing to blow him or herself up in a suicide bombing event, what would stop them from placing the C-4 or Semtex in a body cavity to gain access to the plane?

Will the TSA begin body cavity searches next?

[Vinca]

87. That's what I've been saying. The first time a bomber sticks the goods up his bum,

it's bend over passengers. I'm so grateful I hate to travel.

[cornermouse]

88. I would add dehumanizing to your list.

[customerserviceguy]

89. I never thought a government agency would be more hated and distrusted

than the IRS.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[angrychair]

98. and there we have it folks

the open mocking of our Democratic president on DU. Nice. This place is getting better by the hour. At this point this place has become a joke. I can't hit a link to any story where there isn't constant moaning about the president and how bad he is...enjoy president Palin in 2012...hope that small town Alaska girl thingy works out for you.

oh...by the way...to be clear...yes, there is a difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable. It is ok to disagree as long as it is reasoned and polite...both traits are missing from discussions more and more on this site.

[james0tucson]

105. and there we have it folks

The President may have lost a significant portion of his support base over his response to this one single issue. But the thing is, airport security only affects about 20% of Americans anyway. Fewer than 20% fly as often as once per year.

[angrychair]

101. This doesn't get said enough

you do not have to fly. If you don't like a TV show, do you keep watching anyway? If you don't like a shirt, do you keep wearing it? If you don't like the new security procedures and don't want to be "groped" than don't fly. Its not a constitutional issue if it is done by choice. You choose to buy a ticket, you choose to enter the airport and therefore you choose to submit to the procedures required to enter the airport and fly on a plane. you choose to submit to it by choosing those actions. See the running theme here? It is the word "choice". That is the ultimate freedom here in our wonderful country. Don't want a theme park security guard going through your purse? Don't bring it in or don't go to the theme park. Choice is the only real power any of us have. Your choice has monetary consequences and if as many people think the same way as you do and choose not to fly, like you do, than the cost of the policy will be more expensive than the what the policy is saving them (opportunity cost of another action) and they will change. If you think there is enough people that think like you, than put your money where your mouth is and choose not to fly.

[thesquanderer]

107. having a choice

re: " If you don't like the new security procedures and don't want to be 'groped' than don't fly."

That's a difficult choice to make for many business people whose job requires travel. Then the choice to not fly becomes a choice to join the ranks of the unemployed. With even further consequences perhaps for your family, your ability to stay in your home, etc.

There are also people who have made other life choices based on the availability of flight... moving away from family with the knowledge they could get back in an emergency in a matter of hours, that kind of thing. So these people would then need to up and move...

Nevertheless, I completely agree with your conclusion, "Your choice has monetary consequences and if as many people think the same way as you do and choose not to fly, like you do, will change." If enough of us with true choice do cut way back on our air travel or completely avoid it, and the airlines see a large enough drop in passengers, that will probably give us the best shot at a change in policy. Thousands of us complaining will likely have far less impact on our lawmakers than the complaints of just a half dozen people... if those half dozen are the CEOs of Delta, United, American Airlines, etc.

[54anickel]

108. I agree. It's a difficult choice, but a choice. Most Americans are so accustomed to getting what

they want, when they want it. Hence the crazy "credit is money" mentality. We were sold a bill of goods, the idea that living on credit is the norm vs earning a livable wage. We didn't demand a livable wage. We were lulled into accepting the notion that being offered credit was equivalent to being a good credit risk, the "Surely, I'm making good money (or expected to have a good earning potential after college) or they'd never offer me this much credit". They got us to accept mountains of debt as the norm, which led to mountains of "thangs" we really didn't need - another result of being bombarded, 7x24, with imagery and messaging of what's expected of you as part of society. We considered it freedom---the ability to obtain our hearts desires pretty much whenever we wanted -- when it couldn't be further from the truth

Politely we call it good marketing, but what it truely is, is PSYOP. This TSA bullshit is just another attempt to test how far they can go. Whether it's due to our petulant nature, fed by this notion of getting what we want when we want, or based on fear - whether for our safety or of loosing our jobs if we refuse to fly.

A nationwide boycott is in order, but due to the above, will likely never happen. No matter how you slice it, "they" win. It is by design.


Edit to add:
Edward Bernays would be so proud!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3081752751625862941#

[LisaL]

121. There are a lot of things you don't have to do.

You don't have to be on the street either. If TSA set up random check points on streets I presume you would be o'key with it too?

[Barack_America]

132. I don't fly, and am lucky enough not to have to.

I will, however, continue to defend the rights of those that do.

[angrychair]

103. This doesn't get said enough:

you do not have to fly. If you don't like a TV show, do you keep watching anyway? If you don't like a shirt, do you keep wearing it? If you don't like the new security procedures and don't want to be "groped" than don't fly. Its not a constitutional issue if it is done by choice. You choose to buy a ticket, you choose to enter the airport and therefore you choose to submit to the procedures required to enter the airport and fly on a plane. You choose to submit to it by choosing those actions. See the running theme here? It is the word "choice". That is the ultimate freedom here in our wonderful country. Choice is the only real power any of us have. Your choice has monetary consequences and if as many people think the same way as you do and choose not to fly, like you do, than the cost of the policy will be more expensive than the what the policy is saving them (opportunity cost of another action) and they will change. If you think there is enough people that think like you, than put your money where your mouth is and choose not to fly.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

106. so glad I am not planning a trip this upcoming holiday. what a nightmare.

K&R btw

[AspenRose]

125. We are driving. Cross country.

[sarcasmo]

117. This is not the change I voted for.

[JJW]

119. Now if that isn't

a happy (f-ing) holidays to liberals. Obama may be worse than Rahm.

[salib]

120. Wasn't the point that Obama would do well what Government can do well?

And Dem's for that matter.

Weren't we the party that believes Gov't can do things well.

So, why all this groping? Is this really well thought out and implemented policy when it comes to Airport security?

[ProudDad]

122. "enhanced pat-down" = "enhanced interrogation"

Nothing new in the Empire...