Eugene Robinson: Why Granny Gets Searched

[babylonsister]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_granny_gets_searched_20101122/

Why Granny Gets Searched

Posted on Nov 22, 2010

By Eugene Robinson


It’s hard to love the Transportation Security Administration, especially now that airport personnel seem so intent on touching people’s junk. But the TSA’s job isn’t to be adorable, it’s to be infallible—and also, apparently, to suffer being unfairly maligned.

Sure, the “don’t touch my junk” guy touched a nerve. I spend enough time fighting my way through airport security lines to share his frustration at ever-changing procedures that seem capricious, intrusive and sometimes just bizarre. But what, specifically, is the alternative?

Last Christmas, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to bring down an airliner by detonating explosives concealed in his underwear. The device did not properly explode, but the incident sensitized the TSA to the danger of terrorist bombs that might make it past a metal detector—hence the rush to install full-body scanners that give a clear view of what’s beneath a person’s clothing, junk and all.

An unacceptable, un-American invasion of privacy? That’s not what critics were saying at the time. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s assessment of the underwear bombing attempt—that “the system worked” because a fellow passenger jumped Abdulmutallab—was ridiculed. If there was technology that could have detected the underpants device, critics asked, why hadn’t it been in place?

So now the scanners are being installed—and some people complain that they do too good a job, clear-picturewise. The TSA’s response is to give travelers the option of submitting to a manual search that is comparably thorough. It would defeat the whole purpose of the machines if people could just say “no thanks” and then undergo a cursory search that might leave a device like the underwear bomb undiscovered. The pat-down, if it comes to that, has to be thorough.

Is all of this really necessary? That depends on how safe we want to be, or rather how safe we want to feel.

snip//

If we only search people who “look like terrorists,” al-Qaeda will send people who don’t fit the profile. It’s no accident that most of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were from Saudi Arabia; at the time, it was easier for Saudi nationals to get U.S. visas than it was for citizens of other Arab countries. If terrorists are clever enough to hide powerful explosives in ink cartridges, then eventually they’ll find a suicide bomber who looks just like you, me or Granny.

Be patient with the TSA. And have a happy Thanksgiving.

[saigon68]

1. Janet Napolitano

Is like a bomb rolling around on the deck of the Titanic

[customerserviceguy]

2. It's sad to see when people sell out

I wonder what Martin Luther King, Jr. would have said about this.

[babylonsister]

3. Who is selling out? I wonder what MLK Jr. would have said

about people trying to blow planes up?

[CreekDog]

45. I like Eugene Robinson, but he's wrong on this

the scanners' safety is questioned by experts at UCSF (not exactly quack central).

[laughingliberal]

62. He was a pretty consistent defender of the rights of the people. I don't think he'd like this...

TSA stuff.

I only met him once but I can't see him supporting our current police state at all.

[dennis4868]

5. Eugene Robinson....

Should never be called a sell out....he's a realist and one smart man to say the least.

[secondwind]

6. Agree 100%

[Kolesar]

7. Weak

your post is weak

[customerserviceguy]

55. Treating ordinary Americans like criminal suspects, just because they want to travel

in their own country, then justifying it, is what's weak.

[jefferson_dem]

10. Like, really!

And what would Eugene Robinson know about MLK, Jr. anyway!

[BeyondGeography]

11. He would have said who is customerserviceguy to call Eugene Robinson a sellout

[customerserviceguy]

56. I'm just a person who believes in the 4th Amendment

and anybody who is willing to give up those freedoms is a sellout, to me.

[Ikonoklast]

22. Eugene Robinson is the furthest thing from a sell-out.

He is a very smart person that lives in the Real World.

[customerserviceguy]

57. That's funny

coming from a person who uses the "Don't Tread on Me" flag as an avitar. Anybody who justifies the hysteria is a sell out. Ordinary Americans are not part of the problem, but treating them like they are is going to push them into the reich wing camp.

[Ikonoklast]

74. Clueless, as usual,

I'll give you a choice of which plane to fly on your next overseas trip:

Flight A: All passengers have been searched in a proper manner. Those that don't agree to the security checks do not get to board the plane, and are turned away.

Flight B: Some passengers have been searched, some haven't. You have no way of knowing which of your fellow travelers went through security checks.


I know which flight I would take.


And the word is 'avatar'.

[Pholus]

4. And we should be clear on this: The TSA chose the more harmful of the two available techs.

Edit: Robinson IS right. If you search, you search EVERYONE or you leave a hole that can be exploited.

But the TSA does not have your best interests at heart here.

Millimeter wave is not NEARLY the privacy concern, nor is it the radiation concern that ionizing radiation is.

Yet, for the "sharper picture" we went with the more invasive and harmful technology.

Let's continue this thought as well. Why a sharper picture?

Scientists at Livermore suggested SCRAMBLING the backscatter images. You still see high-reflections on the scale -- the indication of a threat but you don't get the privacy invading picture of your junk. It was an hour in software development to make the change.

They were ignored. Why?

[earthside]

8. Emerging Hypocrisy

If the NSA is listening to everyone's telephone calls and monitoring everyone's emails --- looking for terrorists organizing bombings -- that's okay now, too.

Amazing how the types of things so many were outraged about when Bush was 'president' are acceptable ... now that Obama is president.

I thought the Patriot Act was an overreach.

I thought that Bush administration officials should have been prosecuted for eavesdropping on us.

But, now, we are supposed to simply accept the government's word that there are new terrorist threats and just like in the Bush days we are supposed to believe that the "government knows things we don't."

Acceptance by Democrats, liberals and progressives of doing whatever is necessary to keep us safe is threatening to turn us into hypocrites.

[elizm]

41. Bullshit. Democrats have never used fear mongering...

...And would have NO reason to do so. And yes, the Christmas underwear bomber WAS a clear and present danger/threat....in case you didn't notice, the holiday season is upon us again. I'd feel much more comfortable traveling knowing that the passenger next to me was concerned about the common good of us all rather than some irate libertarian next to me who can't see the forest for the trees. NSA wiretapping without our knowledge in our own homes is one thing....This is nothing of the sort.

[catgirl]

48. I think it's the opposite

Bush got away with everything. He joked about everything with his heh heh and his base thought he was charming. I don't
recall there being public/media outrage with Bush as there is with Obama. If Obama coughs a certain way, there's outrage.
There were no Birther distractors, teabaggers, etc. for Bush to deal with. Now there are organized groups that feign outrage
every chance they get.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

65. Spot on. Obama will get this figured out, not to worry. He always does.

[jefferson_dem]

9. How dare Eugene...

interrupt a perfectly ... unhinged ... circle-jerk of hysteria ... with obvious common sense!

[COLGATE4]

13. K&R

[Pholus]

29. Yes, that's it.... It's unhinged. Nothing to see here. It's common sense to surrender your freedom

Pathetic.

[CreekDog]

36. is not wanting forced x-rays "hysteria" --some of us are not allowed to opt-out

:shrug:

[elizm]

42. Hear hear! nt

[jaxx]

12. Ah the sanity of Gene Robinson.

He just took all the hype and sent it to the dump. Sweet.

[flpoljunkie]

14. 'Neither the full-body scanners or the enhanced pat-downs are making anyone safer.'

I agree with this assessment. Except 9/11, the airline threats have all come from overseas--including the latest attempt involving cargo originating in Yemen. The Saudis are responsible for thwarting this latest terrorist bombing attempt. Intelligence is key--not patting down Grandma or making old people with various prostheses go thru these new x-ray scanners. It is 'security theatre.'

Is there not some question as to whether these new scanners would have picked up the Christmas 'crotch bomber's' powdered explosives?

There has to be a better way to select those who may pose a security risk than what we are doing now.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/22/do-body-scanners-make-us-safer/a-waste-of-money-and-time

[TwilightGardener]

15. Interesting. Eugene Robinson (pretty reliable progressive) NOT having conniptions.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. The man Obama calls 'the Christmas bomber' was reported

in advance to our authorities. His own father, a respected international business man, reported to our CIA that his son intended harm to America. He was ignored, the son was allowed to freely travel here without any extra precautions. Would it offend you if we at least searched those whose parents have called to say they intend to bomb us? If we stopped those individuals about whom we have specific intelligence.
That 'Christamas Bomber' as Obama annoints him, should never have been able to get on a plane nor set foot in this country.
Thus far, no one has bothered to tell us if they addressed the actual security flaws that allowed that even to occur, no, instead they claim the right to grope the underwear. Why did they ignore the warnings, just like they did on 9-11? Tell me that, and we can talk about feeling up the kids, you know?
Did they fix the hole they let this man through, a man whose own father had reported his intentions to our own authorities? Yes or no?
Robinson is becomeing a shill, he leaves out all of the truth to make his 'point'.

[treestar]

19. Interesting, you've stumbled onto something

Anyone can call and accuse anyone of anything. That would not be grounds for a search. Everyone wants to apply the Fourth Amendment to this precautionary search. Yet if you apply the Fourth Amendment generally, it's not enough for a search just to have someone call them and accuse them. The Fourth Amendment case law would have to be consulted as to whether that was enough.

At any rate, they did not find him from the airport where he departed.

[jberryhill]

25. There seems to be very little understanding of what you just said

The weight of sentiment here seems to be that a "suspicion based" search is preferable to the 4th Amendment rules as they relate to suspicionless administrative searches.

In other words, people want to actually LOWER the bar to a targeted search, which will then be applied in other contexts beyond the rationale for suspicionless administrative searches.

It's like destroying the village to save it.

[slackmaster]

17. He's off the mark on this one

His position is basically if we don't screen Granny, the terrorists will start using Granny-looking suicide bombers.

I'm not buying it. Suicide is not acceptable to an overwhelming majority of people who were born and raised in the US, or any essentially European culture.

Quoting Robinson:

It’s no accident that most of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were from Saudi Arabia; at the time, it was easier for Saudi nationals to get U.S. visas than it was for citizens of other Arab countries.

Why didn't they use a mix of people from many different countries and ethnicities, or a quasi-random selection of US citizens?

Could it be that it's a lot easier to find volunteers for an Islamist suicide mission within an Islamic culture?

Why are people so afraid to ask that kind of question?

[LisaL]

18. Yea, I sincerely doubt rerrorists are going to be able to

recruit grannies and 3 year olds as suicide bombers.

[treestar]

20. There are always exceptions

And I don't think it's established that Islam "culture" encourages this. And there are other cultures that might - Japanese, for instance.

[slackmaster]

26. Sure, but you're still dancing around my point

Granny isn't going to put on a bomb girdle and try to get on a plane.

What I'm trying to say is this: Even if we can't come up with a list of groups of people who SHOULD be bodily screened, at least be able to come up with some categories of people for whom invasive screening would be a waste of time. Like Granny, and three-year-old children.

Call it a "white list" for lack of a better term. Send them through the walk-through metal detector like everyone else. Put their belongings through the X-ray machine as is done for everyone else; if for no other reason than to make sure they haven't inadvertently or unknowingly brought something dangerous with them.

[Pholus]

30. As if the smart terrorists actually blow themselves up. They find suckers who don't fit "profiles"

That's what I'd do. And I'm not THAT much smarter than they are.

[LisaL]

31. I don't think that many people would sign up for that.

Can you name one instance where it actually happened?

[Pholus]

33. Okay, here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

It's all about motivation.

[LisaL]

37. Using your logic, it's Israel that should be getting

the x-ray scanners yet they are not doing it.

[Pholus]

39. Bing bing bing!!!!! Yes, but they say IT DOESN'T WORK.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

[slackmaster]

68. Gee, they were all Palestinian

What a coinky-dink.

[Pholus]

76. Create a security system with holes, the holes get used. Search one, search all.

[slackmaster]

77. The system is to profile known Muslims and people from Muslim countries

Where's the hole in that? Where are all the non-Muslims who have been recruited for suicide attacks in support of radical Islamist causes?

[Pholus]

81. Because the OBVIOUS hole is to find the type of people who don't LOOK Muslim.

But you seem to have a TSA mindset. Defending us from the LAST threat.

[slackmaster]

83. I make no pretense about Muslims looking any particular way

The issue is, mainly, people who hail from Muslim countries. That description fits nearly every individual who has been involved in an attempted or actual attack on a US commercial flight starting with September 11, 2001.

I think you are trying very hard to misstate my position.

[Pholus]

85. Yup, and the Maginot line was going to keep the Germans out of France.

Who'd a thunk that they'd find a way around it once they knew where it was.

Despite your desire to be an entitled member of society based on your non-Muslimhood, the problem with your dream scenario is that ALL I HAVE TO DO is find the one person who doesn't fit your little profile and I'd pwn you.

At that point, the TSA will demand cavity searches because they like their jobs and they're incompetent.

[slackmaster]

87. Yes, I was right about you intentionally misstating my position

Have a great Thanksgiving.

[Pholus]

88. How can you even say that. Your position is "profile Muslims and people from Muslim Countries"

My point, which was that whooshing sound that went over YOUR head, was that by being specific on who to profile you are designing a security hole up fron.

But have a great Thanksgiving as well! Arguing online is fun, but there are many, many things far more important than that. Enjoy them.

[slackmaster]

90. I have time for one final comment: My position has nothing to do with "entitlement".

It's about efficient use of resources for screening airline passengers.

See you later.

[Pholus]

94. My last comment: Don't wish for profiling -- what if the profile includes ownership of guns?

Oh that's right -- we can TRUST gun owners. You have all the statistics to prove it. But just remember that when it comes to security theatre it's feelings, not logic and statistics, that are going to set the policy.

The worst act of domestic terrorism pre-9/11 was caused by a white guy who loved him some guns, so when the profiling agency thinks back to the plots of all the movies they ever saw to imagine what terrorism is gonna look like just how do you think it isn't going to involve guns? The NRA lobbyists have lots of influence, but "terrorism" is a magic word that is hard to fight against these days. The fourth amendment is not faring to well here -- how do you think the second will hold up if some Muslims try some shoot-em-ups in crowded malls?

It's okay to pick on Muslims cause they're not you. But just remember when you single out one group, your group may be the next target. That's why stereotype-based profiling is wrong and dangerously misguided.

[slackmaster]

95. The subject is preventing suicide attacks on commercial airplane flights

The worst act of domestic terrorism pre-9/11 was caused by a white guy who loved him some guns...

That is a Red Herring, and I can't help but wonder if your post is meant as a couched personal attack; like your snide "steely eyed realist" remark on Wednesday.

It's okay to pick on Muslims cause (sic) they're not you.

No. Stop putting words in my mouth. You're not accurately reflecting what I have written.

It's OK to subject young adults who come from Muslim countries to more scrutiny than children and little old ladies who are US citizens when they are boarding airplanes. Frisking members of the latter groups is simply a waste of time and resources.

But just remember when you single out one group, your group may be the next target.

This isn't about persecution of groups of people, Pholus. It's about efficient screening of air passengers. Start frisking children and little old ladies who are US citizens when they start blowing up airplanes.

[catgirl]

51. Remember the Kamikaze pilots?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

There's probably a bit of brainwashing involved to get people to do this, but it happened long before 9/11.

[Pholus]

59. Good book on that one -- Danger's Hour. Talks about a Kamikaze

who crashed the U.S.S. Franklin during WW II. He was a pacifist according to his friends. But it was a time of war, he volunteered, and the steps were small enough that you walked down the path willingly until it was too late to back out. Mostly because you were bonded to a small peer group and who wants to let their friends down...

[slackmaster]

67. All of the 9/11 hijackers, the Shoe Bomber, and the Brief Bomber all were willing to blow themselves

Up.

[Pholus]

75. And you think they were the brains of the operation? Really?

[slackmaster]

78. It doesn't matter. They were all Muslims and all from a Muslim country.

HTH

[Pholus]

80. For being a steely eyed realist, you're pretty bad at designing security.

[slackmaster]

82. I prefer "Reality-based Intellectualist"

But I'll take whatever compliments come my way.

[Pholus]

86. Take it however you will.

[moondust]

21. Eugene gets it.

There are no good options and the alternatives could be worse.

I sort of think that if Americans didn't live their lives in such isolation and paranoia in their cars and trucks with guns and all to protect them from the monsters under the bed, the TSA practices wouldn't be such a big deal.

[ProSense]

23. Kevin Drum is pissed off about this from a different perspective

the outrage originated and was fanned by the RW: Living in Matt Drudge's World

Kevin Drum: My TSA Anti-Rant

I am so going to regret writing this post. For those of you who used to respect me, please just chalk it up to food poisoning or early onset Alzheimer's or whatever. But here goes.

I hate the TSA screening process. Everyone hates the TSA screening process. You'd be crazy not to. It's intrusive, annoying, and time-wasting. It treats us all like common criminals even though most of us are just ordinary schlubs trying to get on a plane and go somewhere.

<...>

I'm not trying to defend everything TSA has put in place. Some of the stuff they do, like the penknife and nail clipper bans, really is stupid. And maybe backscatter scanners don't work. I'm certainly open to the idea. But honestly, most of what they do is pretty easy to understand: they're trying to make it so hard to get weapons and explosives on board airplanes that no one bothers trying — and the few who do can't pack a big enough punch to do any damage. For the most part, it seems to be working. The price we pay for this is plenty of annoyance, but again: do you really want to get rid of the annoyance and bet your life that terrorists will never figure out how to make a better shoe/underwear/liquid bomb? I'm not so sure I do.

And now for a political note: this is GOP catnip. For seven years, Republicans insisted that every security procedure ever conceived was absolutely essential to keeping the American public safe, and anyone who disagreed was practically rooting for an al-Qaeda victory. Now a Democrat is in office and suddenly they're outraged over some new scanners. Helluva coincidence, no? But this is no surprise: this issue works for them on every possible level. In the short term, it gives them something to pound Obama about. In the medium term, it gets the chattering classes chattering about something other than the fact that Republicans have no remotely plausible plan for improving the economy. And in the long term, if a plane does come down, they will absolutely crucify the Obama administration for its abysmal and cavalier approach to national security. (Remember the dry run that Drudge and Fox News conducted over the underwear bomber?) And if you think we can fight back by reminding them that security was reduced because of their outcry, you are sadly delusional. That argument won't get two seconds of air time.

But what about our civil liberties? Maybe you think that even if TSA's procedures are slightly useful, they aren't useful enough to justify all the intrusion. Instead, we should just accept the risk of an occasional plane falling out of the sky. Think again: if a plane comes down, you can just kiss your civil liberties goodbye. Today's TSA procedures will seem positively genial compared to what takes their place with the full and eager support of the American public. Given that reality, if you're really worried about civil liberties you should welcome nearly anything legal that protects air travel from explosives, even the things that are really annoying and only modestly useful.

<...>

I know there are issues with the TSA that need to be resolved, but the RW noise needs to be smacked down.

[CreekDog]

28. I'm sorry the right wing is using this, but I'm going to fight forced xrays

and no, some of us are not allowed to opt out.

[polichick]

24. I love Eugene, but neither of the new techniques will detect suppository bombs...

Should we show up naked and bend over on command?

[baldguy]

27. Granny get searched because she's an easy target for the TSA.

The Voices Of Authority in the govt and the media are saying we should rely totally on the technological strip searches & invasive groping implemented by the Bush Regime in the name of security - and anyone who questions the necessity, effectiveness or even the objective of such searches is cast as hyper-sensitive at best, and either naive or ignorant at worst.

The fact is that no other security apparatus in the world that serves a "free" people requires such measures for the general traveling public is simply dismissed out of hand with no response.

The experts I've seen interviewed online & on cable all seem to believe the best time to catch terrorists is before they've arrived at the airport. Otherwise, security personnel should be interviewing each passenger in-depth before they can get on the plane. Unfortunately that would require time, money and worst of all many highly trained, highly paid professional interviewers & the expensive infrastructure to support them at each airport, for each airline and for each flight.

[FBaggins]

32. Believe it or not, Hannity actually had the correct response to this.

The amount of explosive inovled in the Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab wasn't very large.

When (not if) they find a way to insert it into a body cavity... What level of "pat down" becomes justified in that world?

[ProSense]

38. Hannity is a moron

simply trying to hype the RW noise. Questions about how anyone will respond to a hypothetical that has happened is irrelevant to this situation, which requires a solution based on known events and facts.

[golfguru]

34. Alternative is to copy Israeli Airport Security methods with 100% success

No groping every passenger, no removing shoes, no ban on shampoo and
yet not a single terror attack on any flight originating from Israel!

Heart of Israeli airport security is based on profiling and they must
be doing a superb job of profiling.

That is pretty damn good when Israel is surrounded by hundreds of millions of
hostile people, who regularly shoot rockets, and carry on suicide attacks on land.

Smart people learn from what works and do not try to re-invent the wheel.

Stupid people keep trying unnecessarily expensive procedures. TSA is always one
step BEHIND the terrorists. First it was the shoe bomber, now every fricking
passenger has to remove shoes. Then it was the liquid explosives and now we can't
even carry a small bottle of shampoo. Then it was the underwear bomber. Now they
grope our junk. So asinine and so stupid and such colossal waste of dollars.

[ProSense]

40. "Heart of Israeli airport security is based on profiling "

Because from a civil liberties perspective profiling is better?

[golfguru]

43. May be better cuz cheaper & 100% proven effective.

Flying commercial is a choice and I see nothing wrong with profiling
those who choose to fly.

If they profile me for thorogh checking, I have no problem if the general
public benefits from lower cost and less inconvenience and less groping.

[ProSense]

46. "Flying commercial is a choice and I see nothing wrong with profiling those who choose to fly."

So you think racism should be allowed whenever choice is determining factor?

[golfguru]

47. Only if safety of life and death is a concern

and it never is on racial matters. So your point is a red herring.

[ProSense]

50. Racism should be allowed "if safety of life and death is a concern"?

Are you serious?

[golfguru]

61. Read the whole sentence before responding

I said "racism is never a concern in life and death safety situations".

It is very bad policy to quote partial sentences. Alan Grayson lost because
he made an Ad which was out of context and opposite of what his opponent said.
Once people find out you can not be trusted, you lose credibility.

[SwampG8r]

66. its behavioural profiling

its done by behaviour not ethnicity

[Honeycombe8]

72. Israel also doesn't let travelers who have been to certain other countries come in.

Or if they are from certain other countries. I was told that by a friend who recently went to Israel.

And the same is true for entering the Holy Land part where the Palestinians are in control. They do not allow Israelites in (Jewish allowed, but not from Israel).

[hedgehog]

44. From the Wiki article on Richard Reid - ths Shoe Bomber

After his return Reid set about obtaining duplicate passports from British government consulates abroad. Reid next resided at numerous places in Europe, communicating via an address in Peshawar, Pakistan, a city known for its Al Qaeda connections.<3> In July 2001, Reid flew to Israel, passing through the El Al Airline's very tight security network, in what was possibly a test of his ability to pass through airport security screening anywhere.<9> He then moved to Amsterdam, living there from August 2001 through November 2001, working as a dishwasher.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_%28shoe_bomber%29

[golfguru]

49. Obviously Reid was not

showing nervousness during the Israeli flight. He had no reason to,
he had no bombs on him. In fact I will bet he was cocky since he had nothing
to fear or hide.

Israeli profiling, is not just racial or country of origin based.
From what I know, they conduct a brief interview with the
passengers and observe reactions and ask questions about purpose of travel,
look at the passport to see where the traveler spent what length of time, etc.

But who am I to question 100% success rate at much lower cost.

[treestar]

91. But wouldn't there be terrorists who train and control themselves

not to show nervousness? It wouldn't protect from that. Most of the hijackers did not seem "suspicious" on 911. Asking them questions about where they were going - they'd be ready for that. It's only going to work on for lack of a better word, the incompetent terrorist.

[catgirl]

53. And show up four hours before the flight?

I'll opt for the pat down, thank you.

Keep in mind, most Israelis don't travel by plane as much as americans do.

[treestar]

92. Is that how much earlier they have to show up?

I was thinking to - to the American mind, a lot of questions about yourself and your trip might be something we'd be even louder against.

[Honeycombe8]

73. True. But one difference w/Israel is...lots fewer people flying in that country.

It's a tiny country with far fewer people and flyers.

But you're right...we should take a page out of their security book. They have it down pat (not literally patting down, though, like here!). Maybe we could use their methods, and other methods as well.

[high density]

35. "How safe we want to feel"

What we are doing now doesn't make me feel safer. It makes me feel like the terrorists have won. What is the point?

If some people will feel safer by getting strip searched or groped to get on a plane, I think we should let them opt-in to this process. Everybody else should walk through the magnetometer as we had been doing for decades.

What will Eugine Robinson tell us is required when the terrorists from Yemen shove bombs up their asses?

[Moondog]

52. Lame. n/t

[catgirl]

54. Sheesh

[bluestateguy]

58. It would not be hard for Al Qaeda to find some white male anti-Semite Klansman who hates America

and then pay him off and then have him slip through security to bring down a plane.

That would be consequence of racial and ethno-religious profiling.

[LisaL]

60. Pay someone to bring down the plane?

Why would anyone agree to it considering that person would go down with the plane? Dead don't need no money.

[Pholus]

64. I've seen that movie. Isn't it because the guy was terminally ill anyway and had a family?

[great white snark]

63. Well, I would take it as a compliment if I were a victim of penile profiling.

But alas, my bulge is bitty.

x(

[PVnRT]

69. FEARFEARFEARFEAR

Be afraid! You don't need rights! It's all about your safety! Disagreement means you're a terrorist! Et cetera!

I guess all of those security experts who say that this is nothing but theater that really doesn't do much of anything are all right-wing plants seeking to undermine Obama now.

[Honeycombe8]

70. What does Israel do? They're the best at security.

Does Israel use scanners and body feel-downs? (or feel-ups?)

[slackmaster]

84. They profile people based on behavior, appearance, and national origin

Sometimes that's the best way. Most people who hate Israel enough to try to attack it are Muslims.

[Honeycombe8]

71. It's like the Patriot Act. Yes, it helps. But we have to give up privacy rights for it.

So the question becomes...is it worth it?

The same thing here.

Patriot Act....scanners/personal feel-ups. Same thing.

[treestar]

93. That's the problem. It probably is not. But are we really willing

to accept that if there is an attack? Can we really commit ourselves to the idea that there could be an attack and there was nothing we could do to prevent it? That does not seem to be the way in our culture. If something actually happened, we would demand why the government didn't stop it.

We saw it right after 911.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

79. He is right. I hate the TSA policy but I also didnt have a cow last year

when the underwear bomber was found. most people did.

I am ok being somewhat unsafe, for convenience and privacy

However i doubt this is true of most people in this nation. The outrage is understandable, but in many ways so is the action from the TSA.

Overall its a question of how much risk are we willing to take. Flying is statistically much safer than driving, and so i am ok with the risks taken.

[backscatter712]

89. What's sad is that there's a far less intensive way to deal with explosive underwear...

Bomb-sniffing dogs!

It's not like the TSA and Customs don't use dogs already for that sort of thing, and most people will have far less of an issue being sniffed by a dog (even sniffed in the crotch) than going through the porno-scanners and grope-downs.

It's simple, already been implemented in many places, and far more acceptable to the public.