I have a plan! Let's abandon screening air travelers until the next terrorist incident.

[struggle4progress]

Then we can all wail and scream about the lack of security. Then we can impose some rules. When we get tired of the rules, we can abandon screening air travelers until the NEXT terrorist incident. And then we can all wail and scream about the lack of security. Then we can impose some rules. When we get tired of the rules ...

[treestar]

1. Yes, so far haven't found anyone who leaves that end of it out of

the equation to admit that if something DOES happen, then the government should not be blamed.

Some just want to be outraged, period.

We know dang well they would also be outraged if even one person was killed by a terrorist on an airline.

Where was the TSA? Why weren't they screening people?

[MineralMan]

4. Actually, the people who don't fly will think that's a great idea.

It won't be them who are killed in the attack. They're too smart for that, you know.

[ProudDad]

97. So, you're buying into the OPs strawman too...

It's NOT a binary situation...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9604138&mesg_id=9609421

[Odin2005]

2. or may we accept that a tiny risk of dying from terrorism is a small price to pay for freedom?

[beforeyoureyes]

6. Amen

This whole thing is a scam to make money off unsafe body scanners.

FEAR, FEAR, FEAR!

Our government allowed BP to blast millions of gallons of a toxic disperant into the ocean and the people in the gulf are getting sick, some are dying.

You think THIS government gives a damn about our safety.

It is ALL a profit scheme.

It is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO obvious.

[Fleshdancer]

19. and that tiny risk is far smaller than the risk you take driving to the airport in the first place!

This level of fear is not rational.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

34. There you go, using common sense once again.

[Fleshdancer]

36. off topic....

just wanted to let you know that your username cracks me up! :rofl:

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

45. Crab fishing town, a Cancer, and being a old fart.

[Tesha]

52. Americans haven't reacted rationally since at least September 11, 2001.

We've been completely nuts and reacting far out of proportion
to provocations since that day.

Tesha

[treestar]

21. Alright. Then if you do die in one, the government gets no flack.

No "where was the TSA to prevent this?" "Why didn't the government do something?" Right? Right?

[Ikonoklast]

27. Only if you volunteer to be the one telling the survivng family members that their loved ones died

as the price *you* were willing to pay for your freedom.

Good luck with that one.




I wonder how you would feel if it was you on the plane, screaming in terror as the last seconds of your life tick away.

Would you be willing to change your mind then, or just chalk up your life as the price you paid for being free?

[Odin2005]

42. You are more likely to win the PowerBall than die in a terrorist act.

[Ikonoklast]

50. But when either thing happpens to you, the odds soar to 100%.

[howard112211]

88. I think your understanding of the concept of probability is somewhat lacking.

[Lost-in-FL]

43. +10000 nt

[Warren DeMontague]

3. There is a middle ground between ridiculous, useless, invasive over-screening

and doing nothing.

[struggle4progress]

5. No doubt there is. Perhaps you could describe precisely where it is and how to find it

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

18. You don't want much do you, will just a couple of words do?

Here goes. Stop being fearful, stop wars for oil and stop the USA from being the worlds number one arms merchant.

[struggle4progress]

39. I think all those would help some, not always immediately, but wouldn't solve the problem completely

and wouldn't begin to address the associated domestic political issues that drive much of our national policy

[coti]

29. I certainly can. You use metal detectors, X-ray screening and searching of bags, and bomb-sniffing

dogs.

That should do it.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

32. Yes, like we were already doing.

[struggle4progress]

68. That didn't stop Mr Explosive Panties last year, and as you may recall the GOP was

eager to use that case to stomp-n-holler about the need for military tribunals and Guantanamo

[coti]

83. I'm talking about having the dogs sniff every passenger.

We weren't doing that.

[struggle4progress]

93. You're talking about 800 million dog-sniffs-human contacts each year

That's over 2 million a day

To avoid regular biting incidents, all the dogs will be muzzled. And the muzzle will immediately suggest to a certain number of phobic flyers that the dogs are dangerous, regularly producing some panic reactions

[coti]

102. Yeah, and they take about a second a piece. All they have to do is walk down the line.

Muzzles wouldn't be any more of an issue with well-trained dogs than they are with the sniffers that are used today.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. "Mr. Explosive Panties" was on an international flight, coming from another country.

Part of the problem here is that we're assuming everyone- the 87 year old grandma from topeka in a wheelchair to the 4 year old- is equally likely to be another "underwear bomber"... they're not.

People like to talk about how Israeli security does things better- a big part of that is, they know who the people are who are getting on the planes. And you bet your bippy there is ALL sorts of profiling going on, too.

[struggle4progress]

91. It's my understanding that US regulations require similar screening of passengers flying into the US

from abroad

And it's not clear to me US flyers would enjoy "Israeli-style" security checks:

Israeli Airport Security
Nov 16th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
... it took me approximately three hours to get from the initial passport check through to the food court ... Each individual item from the bag I was allowed to carry on had to be separately wiped down for traces of explosive residue and several items had to be wiped multiple times. I was groped a couple of times, yelled at by surly Russian immigrants, accused of “lying” because I’d forgotten I had a second iPod charging cord in my bag, interrogated several times about who I’d talked to, etc ...
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/israeli-airport-security/

It's also not clear that grandmothers are above suspicion:

Terrorist Grandmother Convicted for Bombing Plot
by Maayana Miskin
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132244

California grandmother made dummy bomb that led to international terror alert
Did German agents leave training device at Namibia airport?
NBC News and news services
updated 11/19/2010 12:05:22 PM ET
... The owner, Larry Copello, told NBC News that his then-80-year-old grandmother had completed it, doing the wiring and fitting Velcro attachments ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40270827/ns/world_news-africa

Similarly, it is not at all clear that all sick wackos have scruples preventing them from using children

[donco6]

105. Mr Explosive Panties didn't work, did he?

Just like there's no possible way to combine liquids in mid air and cause an explosion that could bring down a plane. But that didn't stop TSA from banning baby bottles.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Yes. Procedures and policies that have no basis in science or purpose beyond inconvenience

i.e. the ridiculous thing about 3 oz. of liquids--- I think the line should be on the other side.

Unless someone can demonstrate that rigorous searching of everyone is finding weapons instead of nail clippers and bags of pot--- probably, no.

If someone can come up with a compelling narrative why nudie x-rays, with the concomitant increased dose of targeted radiation- can foil a specific plot that couldn't just as easily be achieved with, say, something stashed in a cavity... okay, maybe.

But honestly, I don't think the government's fetish for keeping Whitney Houston from flying with an 1/8th of an ounce of kind bud is worth millions of Americans getting an increased zap of radiation.

[struggle4progress]

71. It's driven by politics. And I suspect it always will be. If you have practical ideas about

how to rationalize the decision making, I'm sure many people would be interested

[ProudDad]

98. Yep, the fuckers just crossed it!

How many domestically originating airliners have been downed by "terrorists" since 9/11/01?

TRICK QUESTION!!!

NOT ONE FUCKING PLANE... NOT ONE!!!

So, yep, here in the EMPIRE ALONE, they've crossed the line into unnecessary sexual abuse in the name of "safety"...but really, in the pursuit of profit and CYA...

[laughingliberal]

12. Yes. And we passed the middle ground long ago. nt

[TheIdiot]

13. 10-4 n/t

[treestar]

23. All threads have nothing to do with that though

Is there one thread really discussing that line and where it should be?

Most of it is over the top stuff that just assumes it is too much. No balancing of risk has been discussed in the myriad threads.

No one is willing to draw the line where the government does not get the blame - the line where enough screening is enough ought to be there. Over that line, the government should not get sued if something does happen.

[EFerrari]

46. Not really. How much do we spend on FBI and CIA and Homeland Security

to stop these people BEFORE they get to the airport?

And, we know for a fact that stationing our troops on foreign soil ADDS to the threat level.

In other words, most of the government work involved with preventing planes from being blown up does not happen at airports.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Who gets sued?

I don't remember the government getting sued for 9-11. Certainly no one won.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. How bout we use security and not theater?

100% cargo checks should be in order, for example.

How about K-9 teams?

Keep defending methods that even the GAO said don't work.

Jesus, there are days.

Oh and unreel by the way...

[superduperfarleft]

8. I have a plan! Let's use strawman arguments to attempt to discredit those who disagree with us!

In fact, fuck having decent debates, let's just all fling e-poo at each other!

:eyes:

[PurityOfEssence]

24. How DARE you say such a thing!

Having already proven that you're convinced that everyone on earth is a shrill, screech-baiting, arrogant snot, you show yourself and everything you believe to be completely without basis, because I CAN find one human being who's above this sort of naughtiness: myself.

So there.

[struggle4progress]

41. Don't fly! Fling e-poo! It's cheaper, safer, and more convenient!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. "There is no safety in the cosmos." - Alan Watts

[laughingliberal]

14. +1000 nt

[TheIdiot]

10. or, we could just do it right...

selective interviews (scareword: profiling) are not just for Israel anymore.

[pnwmom]

16. Would profiling have stopped Timothy McVeigh

if he had chosen to get on a plane with bomb materials, instead of blowing up the Federal building?

[REP]

64. Intelligent profiling that included militia membership, yes

Or even military service in combat without post-combat counseling - McVey and the DC Snioer come to mind ...

[TheIdiot]

75. Exactly... "profiling" is much more than race, color & creed. n/t

[TheIdiot]

74. yes, it would have, if done right. n/t

[laughingliberal]

11. I have yet to scream and yell about the lack of security.

Every time I see a report of some dumbass attempt at bringing down a plane or some such, I search the newspapers for the buried stories of some obscure thing that was just passed by Congress or signed by a president under the radar.

Does seem to me there's always something distracting the people from something they should truly be scared of.

[TheIdiot]

17. and here i was thinking i was the ONLY whacko! ;) n/t

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

30. How about passing the START treaty for one?

People should be screaming for that.

[leeroysphitz]

15. Please stop. You're scaring me. I may start voting republican now.

[kentuck]

20. It's not like the bombers are unaware of the scans and searches..

They will find another way. Perhaps plant it inside the tire of the plane, after they get a job at the airport terminal?

[hedgehog]

25. and if I lock my doors, thieves will just smash a window......

[kentuck]

31. or they will dig a cave under your house and come up under your shower....

when you are gone and take everything you have. The point is: if thieves want to get into your house, they will find a way. You can take preventive measures but there is no guarantee that will keep out someone that is truly intent on breaking into your house.

[PurityOfEssence]

33. The "it's not perfect" argument only goes so far

It's always used by those who oppose change. Yes, few things in life are 100%, but by making better obstacles, the risks are lessened.

I seriously believe that the banning of sharp objects in carry-ons probably stopped some other incidents.

The problem is this pernicious belief in an afterlife that makes people willing to off themselves just to please some angry big sky daddy. Even if the overall statistical risk is incredibly low, it's important to show those who would do this that it's incredibly difficult. Make them work harder at it. Any good military tactician will tell you that it's best to constantly force your opponent to deploy his forces. Make them work harder and harder at planning and scheming and making ever more elaborate devices, wasting endless man-hours to do so.

It's sad that things have come to this, but I think they have. I think I owe it to my fellow passengers to let them know that I've allowed myself to be certified non-combustible, and that I care about them enough to do so politely and go through the system as quickly and pleasantly as possible.

[laughingliberal]

35. At what cost all this 'safety?' I laugh at my younger self who believed we were free.

And by younger, I mean as a child. I began to see the erosion of rights under Nixon. What? You thought that shit stopped when he resigned?

[ProudDad]

99. Or even more easily...

Bribe someone who has a job at an airport...

Or in unscreened cargo...

Built a 10 foot wall and someone will build an 11 foot ladder...

But it's NOT ABOUT "security", it's about population control...

[madpennsylvanian]

22. I don't think Mohammed Atta's boxcutter was in his boxers

Was it?

[PurityOfEssence]

28. Is that a matte knife in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

When Atta did it, these things were permissible; now they're not. This is not a valid argument.

[walldude]

26. LMAO yeah because screening has stopped so many

attacks... Lets see, there was the lighter guy.. oh wait we got him after the fact.. then there was the water guy, oh wait again after the fact.. then there was the underwear guy.. but alas after the fact.. Yes Airport screening is a brilliant plan to protect us, designed by rich jackasses who went from the government jobs to companies in the private sector that they gave contracts to while in their government jobs, and executed by the keystone kops.

While I think the hyperbole on DU is bordering on moronic at this point, I also know that these "scans" have nothing to do with "safety" and everything to do with government contracts and money.

[laughingliberal]

37. +1000 nt

[PavePusher]

38. How about we continue scanning all luggage, use chemical sniffers to check for bombs...

And restore our Second Amendment Civil Rights in airports and on planes so we can have effective self-defense tools available while traveling.

[JackRiddler]

40. Yeah, because before the grope-downs and the full body scanners planes were exploding every day.

This is why all those planes keep exploding in other countries that don't use groping and backscatter radiation scanners.

[madinmaryland]

44. Un-reccing for sheer stupidity and lack of any coherent point. nt

[struggle4progress]

69. Fine. But no matter what we do or don't do, lots of people will be unhappy. It just won't be

the same people in all cases, but there will be lots and lots of noisy outrage no matter what

[Greyhound]

47. Another hit and run trollfest.

:woohoo:
:kick: & U

[TheIdiot]

76. What a great excuse for avoiding the debate! n/t

[de novo]

82. The OP's 'debate' is wholly without merit

and unworthy of much more than absolute ridicule.

[Greyhound]

84. And from the usual suspects. n/t

[Timmy5835]

48. Not a single person here has mentioned Israel and what they do.

They use levels of security which start when you drive in. They look at each passenger IN THE EYES and ask them "how are you?" and "where are you heading?". Two very innocent questions but they are watching you very carefully checking for any nervous reactions. How long does this whole process take? About 30 seconds per passenger. Not ONE Israel based airliner was been hijacked. But their system is based on human interaction and observation where ours is based on expensive technology. In this country nothing is more important then making a buck. And the best way to do that is through fear. Wise up folks, we're being had.

[struggle4progress]

62. "... my experience leaving Tel Aviv was far and away the most unpleasant encounter I’d ever had with

airport security officials in the decade. Moscow in 1998 was worse. As best I could tell, things went pretty smoothly as long as you were (a) Israeli, (b) traveling with an Israeli, or (c) traveling with some kind of well-established tour group. I think this may be how the majority of people go through the airport, which may account for its good reputation. But it took me approximately three hours to get from the initial passport check through to the food court. I was told that I couldn’t take my iPad onto the plane, and therefore would have to check a whole bag that I’d been planning to carry on so that the bag could contain the forbidden device, and the same thing happened to two of the guys I was traveling with. Each individual item from the bad I was allowed to carry on had to be separately wiped down for traces of explosive residue and several items had to be wiped multiple times.

I was groped a couple of times, yelled at by surly Russian immigrants, accused of “lying” because I’d forgotten I had a second iPod charging cord in my bag, interrogated several times about who I’d talked to, etc.

What is true is that except for the Russian immigrants, who do bring the unique Russian approach to customer service, everyone is exceedingly polite. That said, the process took three hours! ..."

Israeli Airport Security
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/israeli-airport-security/

[TheIdiot]

77. You're right & wrong...

Right on Israel, wrong on no one else saying it. See Reply #10

[Bill McBlueState]

49. it floors me

that people push this kind of shoddy thinking on a progressive website. I guess our side does it too.

[otohara]

53. I'm A Reality Type

this is our world now, like it or not.

Canada, Europe, Mexico already doing it, and more countries have ordered the scanners. It's a done deal and we will learn to live with it or don't travel on airplanes.

I look forward to cleaner skies and less oil demand.

[End Of The Road]

51. FAIL for attempt to compare apples with oranges. nt

[jmowreader]

54. There's a better way

Almost all the hijackers who have ever been, fit a specific profile.

First, they travel either alone or in single-sex groups.

Second, they travel on one-way tickets they bought with cash. (These days they might also use prepaid credit cards like Green Dot. They want to use untraceable money.)

Third, they don't bring luggage.

Fourth, they show up at the airport just before flight time. They don't sit around the place drinking coffee and browsing in the airport gift shop.

And finally, they're nervous as fuck when they show up for their flights.

Going back to behavior-based profiling, like EVERY European nation does, like Israel does, like any free country that isn't us does, would SOLVE the hijacking problem.

What do we do? Make Grandpa pull his dick out and show it to the inspectors because, gosh almighty, he might be planning to blow up the plane with a penis sheath made out of C-4.

[boppers]

59. Uhm, not always single sex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Russian_aircraft_bombings

[sabrina 1]

55. So your idea is to cower in fear and hand over all of our rights

to the government, on the very slim chance, very, very statistically slim chance that you might run into a terrorist. What should we do about the dangers of driving? Would you be in favor of having scanners on every street corner, in every mall, at the supermarket, outside every office or workplace, how about groping children on their way to school?

Why do you think that a plane is the only likely target of a terrorist attack, and have you considered the statistical reality of it ever happening to you? You probably have a better chance of winning the lottery.

Or is this all about 'if our team does it, we should capitulate, but when Bush did, it was NOT okay'?

I am really glad to see that people are finally getting over the propaganda of fear because these latest assaults on our rights, may have gone just too far. I think you should stop worrying and ask yourself, do you want a guarantee of total security, which is impossible, and are you willing to live in a police state to try to achieve that impossibility?

The politics of fear! Michael Chertoff thanks you for your support in helping him profit from fear. And the aptly named producer of these abhorrent machines, Rapiscan, thanks every frightened American for helping them to sell their virtual rape machines.

[struggle4progress]

70. Actually, I'm not very worried about terrorist attacks myself. And I completely agree with

you about the politics of fear. But we cannot pretend the political problem into non-existence: it's difficult to get policy makers to loosen such regs because it is certain that they'll be loudly blamed for the next terrorist attempt/attack after the loosening

[sabrina 1]

73. Yes, it is difficult and they probably will be blamed, but

that should not deter a good leader from doing what is right. We blamed Bush for trying to create a police state. That did not deter him from doing so. They will blame Democrats but that would be ridiculous to an informed population.

I also think that there may be a silver lining to the latest abuses. Rightwingers are as outraged as democrats, they are demanding that the abuse stop. It will now be difficult for them to blame anyone if there is an attack and we will not be hesitant about pointing that out.

But none of this should cause an elected official not to do what is right, to protect and defend the Constitution as they are sworn to do. Politics is politics, they will not be facing a death squad should there be an attack, just more of the same partisan political smears. And if they lose an election over doing what is right, that seems like a small price to pay to protect the rights of the American people to me. Some people have lost their lives doing that.

All elected officials should go to DC with one goal in mind and not worry about not being reelected. But my feeling is that anyone who shows a willingness to set aside the fear of losing an election will probably be there longer than they might have anticipated.

[Catherina]

56. The only people who wail and scream about lack of security are those

who support the nation's crimes.

STOP THE CRIME MACHINE. STOP THE WARS.

Unrec for playing their fear game.

[coyote]

57. Irrational Fear

Submitting to a virtual strip search or pat down because 4 planes out of 200 million have been hijacked it the last 10 years. So you have 1 in 50,000,000 chance of your plane being hijacked in the next 10 years.

You have better odds of:
Contracting the human version of mad cow disease 1 in 40,000,000.
Dying from a mountain lion attack in California 1 in 32,000,000
Dying from a part falling off an airplane 1 in 10,000,000
Legal execution
Contact with hot tap water, food poisoning, choking on food, murder, drowning in the bathtub, slipping in the shower are all more likely ways of dying than a terrorist hijacking/bombing on a plane.

You are more likely to be an astronaut, win an Olympic medal, be elected president, get away with murder, date a supermodel, be a pro athlete, win an academy award, or have a NY Times best seller.

*repost from another discussion*

[TexasObserver]

58. reductio ad absurdum

Arguing isn't your strength.

[ProudDad]

100. +1000

:rofl:

I've noticed that too...

Sycophants make lousy arguments...

[TexasObserver]

101. "So, if your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump, too?!"

Any argument that begins with a hypothetical that will never happen and ends with tragedy FAILS.

Thanks for weighing in!

[RetroLounge]

63. Why can't we just agree with whatever Obama says we should do

and then we can endlessly defend him on message boards with lots of blue links and shit.

Yeah, that'll work.

RL

[boston bean]

66. Sounds like a plan

A bad plan, but a plan none the less.

[TheIdiot]

78. Right, and we sure could use...

another bad plan right about now.

[Xicano]

65. How About Employing Explosive Sniffing Dogs Instead of Sexual Assault?

:shrug:

[pipi_k]

67. I have a plan too!

Let's sit and think up all the possible and probable ways terrorists could kill lots of people and then try to preemptively foil them...

Once they find they can't strike so easily at our aircraft, they might try blowing up bridges. We can prevent that by setting up roadblocks and searching all vehicles and their occupants.

Shopping malls, public transportation, trains, subways...same security measures as the airlines...scans and patdowns groping.

Sports events and concerts....more scans and groping. Body cavity searches, even.

Maybe we should imprison anybody with a mental disorder...


I mean, we don't want to wait till something happens, right? Let's just stop it before it starts...

[Sirveri]

72. How about we just keep the 4th amendment instead.

If you're so terrified about flying, don't fly.

[TheIdiot]

79. It's not the flying, stupid. n/t

[de novo]

80. Weak assed fear mongering argument.

[rexcat]

81. If it takes a strip search using ionizing radiation..

to make air travel safe then the terrorists won on 9/11/2001. I am not advocating stopping security at the airports but the TSA needs to stop reacting and start doing their job. If anyone has not noticed all of the terrorists post 9/11/2001 who tried to do something on a flight their flights originated outside the US. So if a terrorist is found with something up their rectum should the TSA start doing rectal exams on every American that flies?

[LisaL]

86. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if they started doing

cavity searches next.
Look at what they are doing already-patting people down including crotch check.
Why wouldn't they come up with cavity searches?

[avaistheone1]

85. The OP post is too ridiculous even to respond to

OP obviously uninformed on the issues.

Unrecommend.

[Nikia]

89. Terrorists could set off their bombs anywhere

Including the security line at the airport. It could be in a whole host of public areas. Intense security of everyone would be an invasion of our freedoms and overly cost prohibitive.
You should be relieved to know that before 9/11, flight attendents were taught to comply with hijackers, but now they are taught to actively resist them.

[Taitertots]

90. Ok, I'm not keen to stop a dam break by plugging a hole with my finger

The most extreme security measures just mean that the terrorists will attack something else. Then when they attack a hockey game are we going to start having the same excessive groping at hockey games? Are we going to require strip searches at truck stops if they use a truck bomb?

[lunatica]

92. Hyperbole much?

[WinkyDink]

94. You are aware 9/11 was a one-off?

[ProudDad]

95. Stupid flame bait...

It's not a binary choice between being a target of the blowback of the Empire's evil...

And being the target of obtrusive, irrelevant, useless, unconstitutional, population control indignities.

But thanks for the strawman, it mirrors the kind of empty bullshit that passes for the Administration/TSA's 'argument' for irradiation and sexual abuse...


Gee, where are the WMD's -- gosh, they aren't here -- gee, they aren't under there...

[Individualist]

96. Baaaa

[Bonobo]

103. What wil happen if there is an 'incident' DESPITE the invasive procedures?

What do you think wll happen then, eh?

Shoe Bomber = Take off your shoes.

Underpants bomber = check everyone's underpants.

What if there is an "anal bomber" or a "vagina bomber" or a "tooth bomber"?

Won't they just get more and more invasive?


Looking forward to your answer!

[donco6]

104. How about we come up with some hyperbolic dumbass comment we can all laugh at?

Or not.