Obama seems to be showing some courage on the TSA pat-downs

[Enrique]

the pressure to discontinue them is immense, both from people with legitimate concerns and from demagogues just taking cheap shots. It would have been so easy for President Obama to just cave to the pressure and order the procedures to stop.

One thing I don't understand about the criticism, of Obama and of the TSA, is don't you think they are doing this because they think it's necessary? If not, then what? Is Obama, or Napolitano, or whoever, going to take the scanned images and get his jollies from them?

Or I'm hearing it's yet another step in the government controlling our lives or whatever. Ok that's a legitimate issue with a lot of anti-terror measures, but how does it make sense with the pat-downs? How does a police state benefit when TSA employees grope passengers?

Finally, one thing I've been thinking about through this whole outrage, and I'm wondering if anyone else has brought it up, is all the people making sacrifices in the terror effort. Like it or not, soldiers are dying and having their lives disrupted, and a lot of them are taking a huge mental toll they might live with the rest of our lives. The burden on the deficit is enormous. Civilians all over the world are being killed, by accident and sometimes by being murdered, due to our war against terror. Muslims in general are victimized by the conflict.

Compared to all that sacrifice, the image scan thing seems like something people can put up with, if it's truly necessary. And again, if people think it's not truly necessary then why are they doing it?

[hedgehog]

1. I wish we could see a mere fraction of this outrage directed against DADT!

[Radical Activist]

4. Yes. Or a lot of other issues we shold be dealing with in the lame duck session

like climate change or repealing tax cuts for the wealthy. This is a well timed distraction.

[de novo]

13. You may be right, but this distraction is a creation of the TSA, which

answers to the WH.

The distraction is to raise the visibility of fear. It benefits the war on terror and distracts from things like the Dems failing to extend unemployment benefits.

The Dems are going to once again lack the spine to get meaningful legislation passed. Their last chance for the foreseeable future, and it is nobodies fault but their own.

[Radical Activist]

23. If people choose to focus on this instead of pressuring Congress

they have no one to blame but themselves. This is another expression of the simple-minded attitude that Obama is the only elected official in DC so all attention should be placed on him at all times.

[de novo]

25. So Congress is just hog tied because people are outraged at

invasive practices that the Obama Administration implemented? Not sure I agree with that.

[Radical Activist]

29. Does Congress need to be pressured or not?

It's pretty simple. Is the netroots focusing on how to pressure Congress during the lame duck session or are we obsessed with the latest outrage du jour?

[de novo]

31. Like Congress needs another excuse for inaction.

But, they will readily take another one. I think you overvalue the netroots effect on Congress.

It isn't the netroots fault that they spend so much time tripping over their own feet.

[Radical Activist]

43. It's sad that you don't believe in people power.

A call or letter to Congress is noticed much more than call number 4,563,035,0683 to the White House comment line. The lame duck session is our last chance to get something big through Congress for the next two years, and we need to mobilize around this opportunity. If you think people have no power to influence anyone, then why do you care? Are you only here to spread doom and gloom? Just campaigning against Obama?

[de novo]

54. I have called Congress for years. But, I think it is a bit naive and

simplistic to believe it actually makes a difference. I am not here for any kind of campaign. I am just one person engaging in a discussion. No different than if I were at a bar or shouting in the street.

[gateley]

14. This affects everyone, Dems, Reps, homophobes. That's why --

the entire population cares, not so with DADT. :(

[Vincardog]

2. They are doing it to provide the ILLUSION of security. IF they wanted to make it safe they would SCA

ALL CARGO.

[Kali]

3. if you are innocent why should you be against searches, phone taps,

random road blocks, traffic cameras, mandatory identification cards or anything else the state deems necessary for your safety? I mean REALLY! buck up and take it!

:eyes:



since this is gd, just in case: :sarcasm:

[gateley]

16. Hey! We have a sense of humor in GD, and may I say, missy,

this is NOT funny! :spank:

:hi:

[hlthe2b]

5. Good God.. another "TSA-apologist" checks in.

:eyes: The phenomenon of the "good German" is alive and well and flourishing on DU, it seems.

If what we are doing is so effective, why are Europe, Canada AND ISRAEL not likewise doing the same? Can you answer that? Oh, yeah, Corporations aren't "people" in those countries, a former head of DHS (Chertoff) could not push purchase of billions of dollars of scanning equipment to line his own pockets and despite political realities, their people expect (demand) that security be EVIDENCE-based.


Obama "showing courage" by not capitulating? By my guess, just the opposite (and I have been an ardent supporter). I believe he has made the political calculation and fears that to not, allows the RW to paint him weak on security. And it is THAT and FAUX news/Rush Limbaugh criticism that he appears to fear most after the 2010 elections.


I will not allow anyone to box me in as "anti-Obama"... He is showing courage and "smarts" right now vis-a-vis the Nuclear Weapons treaty. I give him all creds for that. But, just the opposite, when it comes to TSA and this debacle. I can not and will not be a sycophant for Obama. I support him when he does the right things, give him benefit of the doubt when it is unclear, but I can not turn a blind eye when and ignore when he does not.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[DrDan]

7. bin-go!

[Moondog]

+ 1

[frylock]

28. yep

[meow mix]

30. +rec

pretty sad to watch

[Enrique]

8. Israel uses ethnic profiling

I don't know about Europe, but Israel's system would not fly in the U.S. A choice between ethnic profiling and groping everyone? I'll take the groping everyone, no contest.

So you're giving a reason other than safety, that is profits. That's been known to happen, so I'll keep an open mind about that...

[hlthe2b]

12. You really don't understand how Israel's system works...

Please educate yourself before making such statements.

[Enrique]

18. not an expert, but I'm pretty sure they look closer at Arabs

maybe I'm wrong. Does Israel deny ethnically profiling at airports?

[hlthe2b]

20. Ever spent time in Israel or the ME?

To suggest that one can always tell by looking whether someone is Muslim or Jewish is ludicrous, even to an Arab or Israeli. Do you even know the percentage of Israelis that are Arab Christians or Arab Muslims? Likewise the numbers of Jews or Christians living in Arab countries? DO you know ANYTHING about the ME and its people? ANYTHING?

And yes, I have worked/lived in the ME.

[Enrique]

34. not by looking, by their ID cards

don't their IDs identify Arab vs. Jew? Again, very unlike the U.S. which is good imho.

[hlthe2b]

36. there is an interview with former head of Israeli security with KO

that is archived on MSNBC's site. I respectfully recommend that you watch it and then do a bit more research. I think you will be both surprised that your understanding is so flawed. BTW, an Arab Jew's passport is going to reflect Jordanian citizen or Lebanese, or whatever. Period.

[Enrique]

38. does he deny they use ethnic profiling? n/t

[hlthe2b]

39. the way that the RW advances and uses the term "ethnic profiling"

is not consistent with what Israel does, NO.

[Enrique]

40. does he deny they treat Arabs and Jews differently at the airport?

did Olbermann seem open to doing something similar in the U.S.?

[hlthe2b]

41. GO watch.

You are not about to believe anything I or anyone else says that is counter to your current (lack of) understanding. So, go watch and learn first hand.

[athena]

59. Perhaps YOU should watch.

The film "Salt of this Sea" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1090680/) shows a Palestinian-American woman get searched by the Israeli airport officials. Her only fault is having Palestinian ancestors. While Israelis go straight through, she is strip-searched, asked private questions about her family, and has her suitcase searched manually. The film was shot on location and is based on the personal experiences of the filmmaker.

I doubt very much that the typical American would be willing to go through such a procedure every time they fly.

[hlthe2b]

60. Perhaps when you have spent time in Israel or conversely the Arab

countries, you will have some credibility. You cite some IMDB listing for a movie never widely distributed, that I have no way of viewing, to make a snarky comment. :eyes:

The video clip that I recommended the other poster view is of former Israeli security interviewed by KO and freely available to all to view on the MSNBC website. He is able to speak to actual policy. Whether that policy is flawed or allows for non-uniform application, I have no idea. But, the fact is he is able to speak to the approach that Israel uses. And given the relative risk faced by Israel, it would seem to be a starting point for our own TSA to at least explore and consider in refining our own procedures.

Further, there is no way to evaluate a single anecdotal event, no matter how compelling the movie made from it to which you refer. Was that event warranted? Who the heck knows? It is as difficult as evaluating some of our own TSA excesses. Perhaps some of those were warranted based on information we have no way of knowing. Or, maybe they reflect what all of us fear, inappropriate or inconsistent application of policies that allow for some to face this kind of excess.


I have been singled out following a return from Arab countries for additional screening. I have been singled out, as a western woman traveling to Arab countries, and likewise to Israel. I can understand the need in SOME cases to do so.

[sally cat]

42. What they do is behavioral profiling. Jews, Arabs, Palestinians all LOOK Middle Eastern so basing it

on appearance can't work for them. Thus they interact with passengers instead of observe from a distance like our STOP officers do. Seems to work.

[Kali]

56. you don't think there is ethnic profiling going on in the US?

:rofl:

[Enrique]

57. it's illegal here

in Israel it's policy. There's no law against ethnic profiling there. They have ethnicity on their ID cards. Radically different than the United States in that regard.

[Kali]

58. oh ok

that must mean it doesn't happen

[nadinbrzezinski]

You surprised?

On the bright side they are a loud but small minority.

[gateley]

19. Nice. Calling a fellow DUer an apologist. When someone sees

a different point of view, according to you they're a Good German? Do you know this person?

It's sad to see how the intolerance level has burgeoned here on DU. :(

[hlthe2b]

26. the comment refers to their political positions

and their willingness to be compliant/unquestioning in their beliefs. Criticizing someone's attitudes and beliefs is why we are here, I do believe. There is considerable difference in criticizing someone's beliefs and criticizing or condemning them as a person.

The German people were unquestioning. The German people were not all Nazis, nor even "bad" as a people, but they failed to question their own government and its policies. The comparison is apt if we do so as well.

[gateley]

44. I'm totally in agreement about the Germans and the parallels here

in America as of late. So point well taken and you're right - I was dissing the Good Germans and that is unwarranted.

I don't think we're here to criticize, I think that distances us from one another when we really need to be cohesive. Discussion, critiquing with an explanation as to one's opinion, that's how I think disagreement should be dealt with. We shouldn't be dismissive of someone else if they hold different views, even if they really ARE wrong! :7

I've had my eyes opened several times when I disagreed with a poster - and a real discussion helped me to gain a broader understanding of the issue. I may not have changed my mind, but I had a better grasp of the entire situation and others' differing viewpoints.

All that being said, I knee-jerk reacted to your post. I've grown weary of people judging others - and it sounds as though they are dismissing them as people. Are you that dumb? Are you really that stupid? Shouldn't you be posting on Free Republic? Stuff like that. We all want the same things, yet we push one another away.

Sorry I over-reacted. :hi:

[hlthe2b]

45. Thanks, gately...

Sounds like we are in considerable agreement. And yes, the tenor of debate matters too.

Back at ya, :toast:

[frylock]

27. great post

[FormerDittoHead]

51. It's funny to me because if an (R) were President, these same people would be leading the charge.

I'm a citizen FIRST, *THEN* a Democrat. For Pete's sake.

>I will not allow anyone to box me in as "anti-Obama"

Yes, that's the plan. You're a freeper if you don't support this TSA bullshit. I've left the DU before, and this is pretty bad...

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. The underwear guy got them all shit scared & they think it will keep

happening. This is their best solution so far. What else is there to say about it?

[de novo]

15. That it is a facade, does nothing to increase safety and only elevates fear.

At the expense of tax-payers and civil liberties.

[The_Casual_Observer]

32. You are giving them too much credit. With the holiday traveling

season coming up they think there is an increased threat. If you were taking the possibilitiy
of another bomber seriously, what would you do?

[earthside]

10. Could have been written by ...

... a Bushite.

[gateley]

22. Nice. In this one thread I'm amazed at the number of people who

are dismissing this DUer's opinion.

Couldn't you have phrased it differently and maybe opened a respectful dialog?

DU is hurting my soul these days. :(

[hlthe2b]

33. Most of us are not willing to capitulate, that is all

Change doesn't come from turning a blind eye. Sorry, gately, I respect you, but you seem to be telling us to all turn a blind eye and hope things will change.

[gateley]

46. No no no -- that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm enraged by this

situation so the last thing I would advocate is turning a blind eye and crossing our fingers. I don't think that's the answer to ANY problems or wrongs.

That's all you needed to say -- we're not willing to capitulate and just hope for the best. This person doesn't agree with us, but that doesn't make him/her an apologist. S/he's just sharing her opinion and I respect him/her for doing that even though I don't agree.

Boy, am I in a mood this morning! Must be because the first fluffy flakes of snow have started falling in Seattle and I'm all "why can't we just get along?". Snow seems so pure, I want US to be, too! Pure of heart, anyway. :7 :pals:

[de novo]

11. He could just 'cave' and do the right thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. To protect and defend...

That includes the Fourth Ammendment...

Papir bitte...

[Beartracks]

21. And on a related thought...

... Does anyone really think that TSA employees were thrilled when they were told they'd have to elevate pat-downs to gropes? It's gotta be hella uncomfortable for them, too.

I would think that, like medical workers, it becomes clinical. You see bodies, butts, and boobs all day at work, you're not going to really remember any of them.

-----------------------

[gateley]

24. I so agree. Can you imagine? You want me to do WHAT???

If times weren't so tough and good jobs with benefits almost impossible to come by, I'm guessing there would be a sizable exodus of fleeing workers.

[kiva]

35. No, he's not showing courage.

"Is Obama, or Napolitano, or whoever, going to take the scanned images and get his jollies from them?" No, he is doing what Democrats have been doing for over 50 years, making security decisions based on trying to avoid criticism from the Republicans on being too soft on communists/socialists/terrorists, or whatever -ist is fashionable to fear. Democrats have been (largely) effective in domestic affairs, but have failed in most foreign policy and security issues because our guys spend too much time worrying about not looking "soft" on these issues.

And please don't even try to say that we need to "sacrifice" our personal dignity because there are soldiers and civilians being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. One has nothing to do with the other.

[gateley]

37. I agree with some of your points/opinions, Enrique. I do honestly

think that Obama and Napolitano believe what their experts told them, that this is the best way possible at this time. I just happen to NOT believe those experts, and as usual, feel money and profit is behind this technology/approach. My concern is that although, again in my opinion, this isn't an intentional effort to beat us down one more notch, that may be the outcome anyway.

A guest on AC360 said the commitment to purchase the scanners was given during the Bush Administration, so if anyone (I'm thinking Republicans) tries to claim this is all part of Obama's Fascist agenda, they're pointing the finger at the wrong President.

But overall, I don't think that the "terror effort" is legit as it's been presented to us. The Iraq invasion had NOTHING to do with terrorism, just oil. Al Q has for all intents and purposes exited Afghanistan, and I'm not sure stomping out an Al Q cell here or there will do much because the Hate America movement has grown exponentially as a result of the Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney actions.

I don't think he can just order this to stop because he DOES feel the responsibility for the safety of American citizens and if my opinion of him and Napolitano is correct, believes this is the best we can do at this time.

[Bucky]

47. "seems to be showing some courage"

setting the bar low is one way to win

[high density]

48. Obama's screwed no matter what he does

The GOP has taken a brief hypocritical break from the "security at all costs" banner that they took during the Bush admin to latch on to the populist outrage about the current TSA conditions. It worked on the deficit, even though they created it, and now they will do the same thing with "security."

The fact remains that when another attack happens, they will blame Obama for not doing enough, even though his agency is requiring everybody to be strip searched or completely patted down to fly on an airliner. I don't know what else they could possibly do beyond asking people to fly naked with no luggage and cavity searches. The latter of which I guess will be coming shall some al-Qaeda type decide to light a bomb in his ass on fire.

[Odin2005]

49. No, his support of the gropings is DISGUSTING and SHAMEFUL/

[Occam Bandage]

50. No, he's going along with it because 4 in 5 Americans support it.

He's going with what polls say the majority want, instead of what the loud, principled minority wants. Quelle surprise.

[frylock]

53. what do the people say about afghanistan? medicare for all?

sorry man, but drawing the "obama the populist" card ain't gonna fucking fly.

[bigwillq]

61. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[Laelth]

52. Since when is pandering to people's fears "courage."

Doing the right thing and protecting our 4th Amendment rights would take courage.

Obama should end the pat-downs and eliminate the nudie scanners immediately. He could do so with the stroke of a pen, and he should. This is a PR nightmare, and it was bad judgment to institute these practices.

-Laelth

[Exilednight]

55. Who needs civil liberties in the age of terrorism? n/t