Question For Parents

• tk421

  

  I have a question for you parents of the Chatter. Would you allow some stranger to come to your house or stop you on the street and do this to your son or daughter? Would anyone else but an agent of the government not be arrested for touching a child in this way?
  
  For the "absolutely everything for safety" crowd, does this make you feel safer while flying? I know that little girl just looks like a terrorist, I sure am glad the TSA molested her before she got on that plane. What has happened to this country when this type of thing happens everyday at airports and no one says anything?
  
  We are soooo terrified of the bogeyman and so cowed by the government we will let them molest our children, when I'm guessing most of us would attack anyone who tried to do this anywhere else.
  
  I remember when the new "enhanced" pat downs started people on here weren't concerned and some said "sure, I feel safer". Is this the way we catch terrorists?
  
  http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=14536
• LJ

  

  approval bump
• believer

  

  Absurdity....this country is in serious meltdown mode. Wrong is right and right is wrong.
• iclfan2

  

  Those damn white people and children blowing up planes! Thank you TSA for saving us.
• jhay78

  

  I'm sure Rule #1 on page 1 of the TSA employee training manual says, "Common sense in all its forms is strictly prohibited".
• Belly35

  

  Sure right after I get a look and feel under that 'Dishdasha' 'Hijab' 'Niqab' 'Salwar' 'Kameez' and the removal of that Burqua ….. fair is fair ….
  I'll take off my vest.. OK
• O-Trap

  

  iclfan2;737345 wrote:Those damn white people and children blowing up planes! Thank you TSA for saving us.

  There are indeed plenty of white people who have tried to blow up planes.
  
  I don't think this kind of treatment should be done to anyone, though. I don't care if it's a man named Mahmud Shabash al Raheem in the U. S. on a visa who has no luggage and a one-way ticket.
  
  This kind of invasion of privacy is asinine.
• Al Bundy

  O-Trap;737390 wrote:There are indeed plenty of white people who have tried to blow up planes.

  
  How many of them were 5 years old?
• O-Trap

  

  Al Bundy;737391 wrote:How many of them were 5 years old?

  
  None. However, some of them may have been parents, and I wouldn't put it past some of them to use their children, whether zealot or unstable. Would you hedge your bets toward them all being "above" such actions? I wouldn't.
• believer

  

  O-Trap;737394 wrote:None. However, some of them may have been parents, and I wouldn't put it past some of them to use their children, whether zealot or unstable.

  I wouldn't either but zealots (and we all know who the zealots are) who are willing to do this are not likely the parents of this little girl, or nuns, or the elderly. These intrusive "procedures" are all being done - not for our safety - but so the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA cannot be accused of profiling.
  
  The problem is common-sense profiling is PRECISELY what should be happening. But the COWARDS running our Federal government are too politically correct to care about common sense.
  
  The more we allow the moronic Feds to keep infringing on our rights, the more this IN-FUGGING-SANITY is likely to grow.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;737404 wrote:I wouldn't either but zealots (and we all know who the zealots are)

  Yep. Zealots who are willing to murder and die for a cause, be it religious or political, do exist, and they come in all shapes, sizes, and ages. If we stereotype Middle Eastern names, clothing, religious leanings, or skin tones, we're being ignorant. There are blond-haired, blue-eyed radicals. There are red-headed radicals. There are male and female radicals. They are young and old.
  

  believer;737404 wrote:who are willing to do this are not likely the parents of this little girl, or nuns, or the elderly.

  Why not? Could religious zealots simply don nun garments? Could they recruit the most elderly of their ilk? Could they find the most middle-America looking of their belief system?
  
  The answer to every question there is "Yes," and in no scenario is it all that far-fetched.
  

  believer;737404 wrote:These intrusive "procedures" are all being done - not for our safety - but so the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA cannot be accused of profiling.

  Profiling is not only prejudicial and ignorant, but if you want safety, it's also stupid. All someone wishing to do harm would have to do is recruit someone who doesn't fit the profile. That's not difficult.
  

  believer;737404 wrote:The problem is common-sense profiling is PRECISELY what should be happening.

  Not at all. What SHOULD be happening is arming people on the plane to be able to properly handle suspicious activity that takes place. I don't mind an airline (private enterprise) adding security on their flights, including cameras and armed enforcement.
  
  No amount of profile is above exploit. That's the inherent problem with it, and that's why it will always fail in the end. It's a method as old as the myth of the Trojan Horse. The Greeks knew they wouldn't be allowed into the city looking like Greeks. So they came in looking like something the Trojans didn't suspect. In that way, they passed the screening of people allowed through the gate, and inside the walls of Troy.
  
  Same rules apply. If we place rules on profiling, those wishing to get past it will just find a way to circumvent the rules we use to profile.
  
  Forgetting the issue of rights (which I contend is a valid issue), profiling isn't even an effective measure for enhancing safety.
  

  believer;737404 wrote:The more we allow the moronic Feds to keep infringing on our rights, the more this IN-FUGGING-SANITY is likely to grow.

  The problem with being outraged about your rights being infringed is that the same argument about your own rights can be applied to anyone else's rights, as well ... that includes those who might wish to do harm to others.
  
  I'd feel safer, without feeling violated, if there were simply more surveillance and security on the planes themselves than the idiotic screening processes we have now. With as invasive as these are, do you know how easy it would have been to hide C4 or a ceramic knife on that girl, or anyone else, for that matter? C4 can be sculpted (carefully), and ceramic knives can be crafted to follow the contour of the body very closely ... or even wrapped up securely and placed in crevices.
  
  Now, I dare you to try to USE those things if you're being closely monitored, and you've got air marshals or other armed security.
• believer

  

  I haven't seen too many 5 year old girls - or blond hair blue eye radicals for that matter - hijacking airliners and flying them into the sides of skyscrapers.
  
  I have no issues with tighter security in a post 9/11 world but common sense should rule....and profiling is absolutely legit.
  
  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;737423 wrote:I haven't seen too many 5 year old girls - or blond hair blue eye radicals for that matter - hijacking airliners and flying them into the sides of skyscrapers.
  
  I have no issues with tighter security in a post 9/11 world but common sense should rule....and profiling is absolutely legit.
  
  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

  You won't see five-year-old girls blowing up planes ... until they do. You won't see as many blond-haired, blue-eyed plane hijackers ... until you do. If you'd like to keep playing "catch-up" with the terrorists, then you're not advocating safety against FUTURE terrorist plots. You're advocating safety against PAST ones.
  
  What I'm talking about is us doing what we can to stay AHEAD of the terrorists. Not clean up after them.
  
  If you profile, all you do is tell the terrorist organizations that they have to do something different. If we can have our cake (no invasive searches on anyone), and eat it too (keep our airlines safe while in flight), then I don't see why we should only be protecting ourselves from things that terrorist organizations will not likely try anymore anyway.
  
  If you profile someone of Middle Eastern descent, the terrorists aren't going to be caught off-guard. They aren't going to wring their hands and go, "S#!t, well what are we going to do now?" They'll easily be able to say, "Well, they're only profiling people who look like, or have names that sound like, there is a Middle Eastern heritage. Let's just find someone who doesn't fit that profile. That person will get through without as much as a cautious eye."
  
  To protect from terrorists, try thinking like a terrorist, and you'll realize that if we were to rely on profiling, we might as well draw them a map on how get around it, because if they want to, they're going to.
• believer

  

  O-Trap;737437 wrote:What I'm talking about is us doing what we can to stay AHEAD of the terrorists. Not clean up after them.

  If touching the groin of little 5 year old Lydia Smith from East Podunk, Ohio seems like common sense preemptive terror management to you then there's not much more I can say that will convince you that this is absurdity and stupidity to the Nth degree.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;737447 wrote:If touching the groin of little 5 year old Lydia Smith from East Podunk, Ohio seems like common sense preemptive terror management to you then there's not much more I can say that will convince you that this is absurdity and stupidity to the Nth degree.

  
  And if I was a terrorist, I'd practically cream myself hearing that I could effortlessly smuggle C4 onto a plane in a child's pants if people with your mentality ran the show. People who think profiling is the best way to protect the public are practically the MVP of any terrorist organization. They're the guys bringing the Trojan Horse into the city saying, "Well, this doesn't fit the profile of a Greek platoon, so it would be stupid to think otherwise!"
  
  Like I have said this whole time, though. Even if we DO what is in that video, we're not going to eliminate the problem, because there are things that can be brought onto the plane, whether on a child or a grown adult, even if the person IS searched like that.
  
  Put a slew of surveillance cameras and a couple armed security (preferably with spec ops backgrounds) on the plane. Then, we can do away with all this bull##it molestation for EVERYONE.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  O-Trap;737437 wrote:You won't see five-year-old girls blowing up planes ... until they do. You won't see as many blond-haired, blue-eyed plane hijackers ... until you do. If you'd like to keep playing "catch-up" with the terrorists, then you're not advocating safety against FUTURE terrorist plots.

  But on the other hand, that's like a doctor telling you: I want to give you an MRI, upper GI, CATscan, EKG, Lower GI, 4 Xrays and a suppository so that hopefully, you won't get a headache today.
  
  Do you see that side of the argument?
• tk421

  

  O-Trap;737470 wrote:And if I was a terrorist, I'd practically cream myself hearing that I could effortlessly smuggle C4 onto a plane in a child's pants if people with your mentality ran the show. People who think profiling is the best way to protect the public are practically the MVP of any terrorist organization. They're the guys bringing the Trojan Horse into the city saying, "Well, this doesn't fit the profile of a Greek platoon, so it would be stupid to think otherwise!"
  
  Like I have said this whole time, though. Even if we DO what is in that video, we're not going to eliminate the problem, because there are things that can be brought onto the plane, whether on a child or a grown adult, even if the person IS searched like that.
  
  Put a slew of surveillance cameras and a couple armed security (preferably with spec ops backgrounds) on the plane. Then, we can do away with all this bull##it molestation for EVERYONE.

  
  You can smuggle all the C4 onto a plane you want right now anyway. I always ask this and no one ever answers. If we are doing all this for protection, why are we ignoring the most obvious? There have been people who smuggle drugs and other contraband in their body cavities, should every single person who flies be cavity searched as well? Even little children, after all those terrorists could just kidnap some girl and shove C4 up her ass. What's stopping the TSA from doing this? Is it that the American public won't put up with it? After all, we allow them to irradiate us and basically strip search us already. Why not go the entire way for 100% complete safety?
  
  Not to mention the flight crew, ground crew, TSA members themselves. None of them are searched going through security. There was a news story earlier this year about a TSA agent who helped smuggle drugs through checkpoints, what's to stop someone from paying an agent off to smuggle a package she thinks is drugs but turns out to be an explosive?
  
  I'm just tired of all the apologists and excuses for stomping on our 4th Amendment rights when they don't even offer us any security at all. If you could guarantee 100% safety by searching 100% of people who enter an airport like this, I might maybe someday not hate it as much, but you can't so it's absolutely worthless. Security theater, plain and simple. Doing something just to look like they are doing something is not protection.
• O-Trap

  

  CenterBHSFan;737541 wrote:But on the other hand, that's like a doctor telling you: I want to give you an MRI, upper GI, CATscan, EKG, Lower GI, 4 Xrays and a suppository so that hopefully, you won't get a headache today.
  
  Do you see that side of the argument?

  
  I do. However, there is a difference between a little pain and the death of dozens, hundreds, or possibly thousands of people. The difference in what is risked would certainly come into play.
  
  My overall point has been that we shouldn't be infringing on ANYONE's rights that way. However, to suggest that we should only check a very small percentage of the people who come through (the ones who fit the subjective profile) is to leave ourselves incredibly vulnerable ... a vulnerability that will be widely publicized ... and a vulnerability that would be quickly exploited if someone decided they wanted to.
  
  If this was to just avoid a headache, then I'd agree with you, but we're trying to balance two much more important matters: individual rights (which are no more or less valid if you look or sound like you are of Middle Eastern descent) and the safety and preservation of life.
  
  I'm sure that everyone here is aware that insurgents over in Iraq and Afghanistan have used children strapped with bombs. Why is it so far-fetched to think that they wouldn't choose the most fair-skinned child they can find to bring down an airplane in an effort against "the Great Satan?"
• tk421

  

  O-Trap;737437 wrote:You won't see five-year-old girls blowing up planes ... until they do. You won't see as many blond-haired, blue-eyed plane hijackers ... until you do. If you'd like to keep playing "catch-up" with the terrorists, then you're not advocating safety against FUTURE terrorist plots. You're advocating safety against PAST ones.

  You better not ever leave the safety of your house if you're worried about what "may" happen. You never know when the guy in the house next door will kill you, after all just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. Hope you like living in fear.
  
  Also, the TSA is pure reactionary. They don't do anything that is proactive. Each and every security measure is after the fact, that's the nature of security. Unless there is some kind of Minority Report system where you can anticipate and know what people are thinking.
• tk421

  

  O-Trap;737610 wrote:I do. However, there is a difference between a little pain and the death of dozens, hundreds, or possibly thousands of people. The difference in what is risked would certainly come into play.
  
  My overall point has been that we shouldn't be infringing on ANYONE's rights that way. However, to suggest that we should only check a very small percentage of the people who come through (the ones who fit the subjective profile) is to leave ourselves incredibly vulnerable ... a vulnerability that will be widely publicized ... and a vulnerability that would be quickly exploited if someone decided they wanted to.
  
  If this was to just avoid a headache, then I'd agree with you, but we're trying to balance two much more important matters: individual rights (which are no more or less valid if you look or sound like you are of Middle Eastern descent) and the safety and preservation of life.
  
  I'm sure that everyone here is aware that insurgents over in Iraq and Afghanistan have used children strapped with bombs. Why is it so far-fetched to think that they wouldn't choose the most fair-skinned child they can find to bring down an airplane in an effort against "the Great Satan?"

  
  We are not balancing the safety of anything, for god's fucking sake. I hate this argument. One terrorist attack on U.S. soil and now we are in danger of being blown up every single time you get on a plane. That's a bullshit argument. If that were the threat, I wouldn't have a problem with this security crap. When's the last time a plane was blown up? Jesus, you'd think the terrorists where on each and every plane.
  
  What lives have the TSA saved in the 7+ years or so since they were created? ZERO. NONE. NADA. They haven't caught a single terrorist, haven't stopped a single terrorist plot, haven't foiled a single credible threat to anyone's safety. IT IS ABSOLUTELY A WASTE OF TIME AND RESOURCES.
• O-Trap

  

  tk421;737609 wrote:You can smuggle all the C4 onto a plane you want right now anyway. I always ask this and no one ever answers. If we are doing all this for protection, why are we ignoring the most obvious? There have been people who smuggle drugs and other contraband in their body cavities, should every single person who flies be cavity searched as well? Even little children, after all those terrorists could just kidnap some girl and shove C4 up her ass. What's stopping the TSA from doing this? Is it that the American public won't put up with it? After all, we allow them to irradiate us and basically strip search us already. Why not go the entire way for 100% complete safety?

  My entire point was that we're working against people who will strive to never BE "the most obvious." In essence, the most obvious will never be the most obvious (whoa). When you're working with people trying to sneak something onto a plane, I doubt they're going to send someone who fits the arbitrary bill for what short-sighted people peg to be "terrorist-looking."
  

  tk421;737609 wrote:Not to mention the flight crew, ground crew, TSA members themselves. None of them are searched going through security. There was a news story earlier this year about a TSA agent who helped smuggle drugs through checkpoints, what's to stop someone from paying an agent off to smuggle a package she thinks is drugs but turns out to be an explosive?

  Nothing, which is why (as I've been saying the whole time) checking people, whether some or all, in the way we do it now isn't going to work in the long-term.
  

  tk421;737609 wrote:I'm just tired of all the apologists and excuses for stomping on our 4th Amendment rights when they don't even offer us any security at all. If you could guarantee 100% safety by searching 100% of people who enter an airport like this, I might maybe someday not hate it as much, but you can't so it's absolutely worthless. Security theater, plain and simple. Doing something just to look like they are doing something is not protection.

  I completely agree. Whether we're infringing on some people's rights or all people's rights, we're still infringing on people's rights. If an Indian man says he doesn't look like a terrorist, because he bears far more Indian characteristics than a man from Iran, does that mean he's "different enough?" Who gets to decide how much you have to "look like a terrorist" in order to be searched?
  
  I'm amazed about the fact that those who, on so many other topics, will scream about the "rights of the people" will turn around and find it acceptable to not only support the infringement of rights (these searches), but even go so far as to suggest that, "Well, it shouldn't be for everyone ... just for 'those' people."
  
  I detest the race card, but I'm actually struggling with how to not use it here.
• O-Trap

  

  tk421;737611 wrote:You better not ever leave the safety of your house if you're worried about what "may" happen. You never know when the guy in the house next door will kill you, after all just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. Hope you like living in fear.

  If my next door neighbor had waged "jihad" against me, as these radicals have against the U. S. ... if my neighbor had a history of assaulting me, as these radicals have to the U. S. ... then yes, I might be worried.
  
  It's one thing to leave your front door unlocked at night. It's another to do it after a stalker has promised to kill you. See the difference?
  

  tk421;737611 wrote:Also, the TSA is pure reactionary. They don't do anything that is proactive. Each and every security measure is after the fact, that's the nature of security. Unless there is some kind of Minority Report system where you can anticipate and know what people are thinking.

  I'm not suggesting we punish anyone for something they haven't done, and I agree that the TSA is reactionary. That's not a good thing. However, let's look at Internet security.
  
  A person building a website with proprietary data held in its database is not going to leave it open and vulnerable until someone exploits it ... and THEN decide to put protective measures in place. He's going to do everything he can to protect that information BEFORE anyone has a chance to take it. He's not accusing a hacker before it's hacked (the Minority Report reference). He's simply looking for gaping vulnerabilities, and doing what he can to stop them.
  

  tk421;737616 wrote:We are not balancing the safety of anything, for god's fucking sake. I hate this argument. One terrorist attack on U.S. soil and now we are in danger of being blown up every single time you get on a plane.

  Good grief. I'm not saying to never fly, or that we need to be scared, but there's a difference between being scared and being stupid. Profiling would be stupid.
  

  tk421;737611 wrote:If that were the threat, I wouldn't have a problem with this security crap. When's the last time a plane was blown up? Jesus, you'd think the terrorists where on each and every plane.

  I'd still have a problem with ANYONE being molested like this, even IF there had been a plane bombed recently. It doesn't fix the problem, and if it's being displayed as our line of protection, then it sure as HELL shouldn't only be done to a small group of the people coming through.
  

  tk421;737611 wrote:What lives have the TSA saved in the 7+ years or so since they were created? ZERO. NONE. NADA. They haven't caught a single terrorist, haven't stopped a single terrorist plot, haven't foiled a single credible threat to anyone's safety. IT IS ABSOLUTELY A WASTE OF TIME AND RESOURCES.

  I agree. Like I said, cameras and armed guards on airplanes would work as well, if not better, and I wouldn't need to have some dude put his sweaty hands on my chode to make sure I haven't hidden a razor blade or something.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I largely agree with Otrap on this one. I'd add that we should just invest in the full body scanners with the technology from I think Sandia National Labs that produces blurry images.
  I've had friends use them at Dulles and have no problems with them. They don't get the fuss.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;737687 wrote:I largely agree with Otrap on this one. I'd add that we should just invest in the full body scanners with the technology from I think Sandia National Labs that produces blurry images.
  I've had friends use them at Dulles and have no problems with them. They don't get the fuss.

  I don't have any issues with full body scanners. I DO have issues with thug TSA agents groping 5 year old girls.
• I Wear Pants

  This is unacceptable.