My Morning Jacket

So any takes on the backscatter Xrays being installed from you all?

Personally I think they're downright unconstitutional, as are the resulting pat-downs given to those who decline.

A bit of info:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/the-full-body-backlash/

My story: We declined to be scanned in Honolulu on our honeymoon (the wife and I). They immediately closed down the entire line and made everyone behind us get frisked.

As a result, it'd make me happy if you all did a little civil disobedience (which it really isn't) and decline to be treated like a suspected terrorist next time you're at the Airport, and also declined a forced molestation by a TSA agent.

I'll never let an airport security guard molest me, check this article out:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/148849/scientists_warn_naked_body_scanners_may_cause_cancer/

those scanners totally give people cancer.  I'm glad I don't have to fly often, too much bullshit to deal with right now.  

 our government is downright loosing its bananas. in the next couple years were gonna have people protesting and revolts like the vietnam war is happening all over again.

IMO.. I could give two shits, Scan me or fondle me,  as long as I have a safe flight and get some tasty peanuts.  I got nothin to hide, and if they want to see my junk I would pull it out and show it to them.

Those scanners would have come in real handy on 9/11. I would gladly get scanned even if it only saved one life.   I guess I fear a  terrorist attack  more than my own government with x-ray glasses.

QuoteIMO.. I could give two shits, Scan me or fondle me,  as long as I have a safe flight and get some tasty peanuts.  I got nothin to hide, and if they want to see my junk I would pull it out and show it to them.

Those scanners would have come in real handy on 9/11. I would gladly get scanned even if it only saved one life.   I guess I fear a  terrorist attack  more than my own government with x-ray glasses.

I got to agree with tater on this one (even though 75% of his responses to any question is: "Scan me or fondle me")

There will be another terrorist attack and people will complain that there's not enough security at airports. Then 6 months later will complain that there's too much security at airports. And back and forth and on and on

I got scanned on the way back from MPP, "fondled"  ;D on the way back from Nashville.

I should probably be outraged, but turns out I just don't care.

Wait until we get an anal bomber. Will that make you care? Or a vag bomb?

QuoteWait until we get an anal bomber. Will that make you care? Or a vag bomb?

a vag bomb would be disastrous.

I was fondled on my way home from Outside Lands a couple summers ago. All my friends had already gone thru security and they stood there in a group watching me and all we could do is laugh, laugh, laugh. The security chick prolly thought we were a sick fucking group and she'd be right.

I guess I need to clarify - I don't think a scanner or patdown at the airport is a huge infringement on my privacy.  Privacy is a myth anyway.

QuoteWait until we get an anal bomber. Will that make you care? Or a vag bomb?

Vag Bomb

female punk band, right there

anybody else hope they start offering happy endings with your invasive search?  I haven't got any action in a while, time to go to the airport.

QuoteIMO.. I could give two shits, Scan me or fondle me,  as long as I have a safe flight and get some tasty peanuts.  I got nothin to hide, and if they want to see my junk I would pull it out and show it to them.

Those scanners would have come in real handy on 9/11. I would gladly get scanned even if it only saved one life.   I guess I fear a  terrorist attack  more than my own government with x-ray glasses.

I agree with Tater and Tracy. The people who whine about security are the FIRST to cry about a terrorist attack. If you feel like you have been abused, then file a complaint with the airport.....sheesh

Hey, I've never been one to complain about security. I guess the flip side is that I don't buy that (a) the security is effective to begin with and (b) there's all that much of a threat domestically. If I were flying from Somalia to Yemen, different story.

But flying from Honolulu to Newark does not warrant my junk being put on display for the TSA or my wife to have her titties rubbed by some 8th grade drop out with a Gov't badge.

Also, you can't compare the new fondle to the old one. The new fondle is under the tits/cupping the balls.

Also, the whole "privacy is a myth" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe it is, then it is because the courts base your privacy on whether or not you expect it.

So I always expect it.

I think people are way to hung up on this...what's the alternative? Do you know how hard it is to keep airplanes safe. I would walk through security naked if it meant I would live another day. Get over yourselves...not much is private anymore.

...if you don't like the ride...don't travel.  :P

QuoteI think people are way to hung up on this...what's the alternative? Do you know how hard it is to keep airplanes safe. I would walk through security naked if it meant I would live another day. Get over yourselves...not much is private anymore.

...if you don't like the ride...don't travel.  :P

The alternative is to come out and admit there is no evidence these procedures have any effect on making the skies safer and to regard those rights enumerated to us through the constitution are not alienated by a false sense of security.

Interstate commerce is one of those rights.

Saying we should not travel if we don't want to be strip searched makes about as much sense as saying you don't mind if the cops randomly rummage through your home because you've got nothing to hide.

Not to mention the additional costs of labor, time, and research going into this. We pay the salaries of the people who treat us all like suspected terrorists. You want to reduce the deficit? A great way to start is by not imposing irrational, unproven, and unreliable security measures.

At least the body scans/patdowns purport to have some kind of legitimate purpose - and I do think it's legitimate, though the odds of a terrorist attack are minimal on the whole.  Frankly I'd take that invasion of privacy over the dozens of others we encounter every day...smile, you're on camera!  ;D

QuoteAt least the body scans/patdowns purport to have some kind of legitimate purpose - and I do think it's legitimate, though the odds of a terrorist attack are minimal on the whole.  Frankly I'd take that invasion of privacy over the dozens of others we encounter every day...smile, you're on camera!  ;D

That camera I'm on isn't storing a picture of my awesomely huge Johnson. Plus, it's not simply a privacy issue (I don't think one would ever win if used to challenge the TSA)

Let me put it in another context: a terry stop for suspected criminals is less invasive.

This is such a loaded issue.  What bothers me most is how easily we got to this point where we can chuck the Constitution out the window where collective fear is high.

Also, to piggy back on the NPR links Blucas posted about the legislative origins of the Arizona immigration law, we are confronted with the blatant conflict of interest evident with Chertoff and Chertoff security group.  Again, this is just the way it works now and no matter how shameful it is, people just accept it.  There is a ton of money in selling these things.

well, for all the lame ass crap we have to put up with, it still doesn't suck to be a white man in America!  ;)

Quotewell, for all the lame ass crap we have to put up with, it still doesn't suck to be a white man in America!  ;)

Try telling that to Karl Malone

Quote

Quotewell, for all the lame ass crap we have to put up with, it still doesn't suck to be a white man in America!  ;)

Try telling that to Karl Malone

Hahaha

You know, I'd look past the Chertoff issue if it produced a tangible benefit to be honest.

Quote

QuoteI think people are way to hung up on this...what's the alternative? Do you know how hard it is to keep airplanes safe. I would walk through security naked if it meant I would live another day. Get over yourselves...not much is private anymore.

...if you don't like the ride...don't travel.  :P

The alternative is to come out and admit there is [highlight]no evidence [/highlight]these procedures have any effect on making the skies safer and to regard those rights enumerated to us through the [highlight]constitution [/highlight]are not alienated by a false sense of security.

Interstate commerce is one of those rights.

[highlight]Saying we should not travel if we don't want to be strip searched makes about as much sense as saying you don't mind if the cops randomly rummage through your home because you've got nothing to hide.[/highlight]

Not to mention the additional costs of labor, time, and research going into this. We pay the salaries of the people who treat us all like suspected terrorists. You want to reduce the deficit? A great way to start is by not imposing irrational, unproven, and unreliable security measures.

As far as there being evidence if these new security procedures work...only time will tell. I think the authorities are just trying to see if this helps. I bet when they first started using metal detectors people had a similar reaction. Times have changed, so procedures must change.

Our world is much different now from when the Constitution was written...I don't think our founding fathers pictured someone tried to blow up an airplane with explosives in his underwear.

You are comparing a public moment with a private moment. When we enter the public realm, we must forfeit most of our privacies.


So you have many ideas on what we shouldn't do...any ideas on what we should do?

Quote
Saying we should not travel if we don't want to be strip searched makes about as much sense as saying you don't mind if the cops randomly rummage through your home because you've got nothing to hide.

Apples and oranges and you know it, counsel   ;)

I get the point you're trying to make - these new procedures do seem invasive, perhaps unnecessarily so.  And of course we should be on guard with seemingly small measures like this that continue to encroach on our personal freedoms, especially considering the lack of demonstrable benefits.  

Of all the hoops we've had to jump through for air travel in the past couple of years, this seems relatively low on the annoyance scale.  Could that be why folks aren't up in arms like they should be?

Or meh.  Maybe I'm just an exhibitionist.   ;D

Quote

Quote
Saying we should not travel if we don't want to be strip searched makes about as much sense as saying you don't mind if the cops randomly rummage through your home because you've got nothing to hide.

Apples and oranges and you know it, counsel   ;)

I get the point you're trying to make - these new procedures do seem invasive, perhaps unnecessarily so.  And of course we should be on guard with seemingly small measures like this that continue to encroach on our personal freedoms, especially considering the lack of demonstrable benefits.  

Of all the hoops we've had to jump through for air travel in the past couple of years, this seems relatively low on the annoyance scale.  Could that be why folks aren't up in arms like they should be?

Or meh.  Maybe I'm just an exhibitionist.   ;D

...a burlesque exhibitionist... ;)

 ;D :-[  ;)

What are three things that cost over $100?

QuoteWhat are three things that cost over $100?

Ladies & gentlemen...we have a winner!!!  ;D

Quote

QuoteI think people are way to hung up on this...what's the alternative? Do you know how hard it is to keep airplanes safe. I would walk through security naked if it meant I would live another day. Get over yourselves...not much is private anymore.

...if you don't like the ride...don't travel.  :P

The alternative is to come out and admit there is no evidence these procedures have any effect on making the skies safer and to regard those rights enumerated to us through the constitution are not alienated by a false sense of security.

Interstate commerce is one of those rights.

Saying we should not travel if we don't want to be strip searched makes about as much sense as saying you don't mind if the cops randomly rummage through your home because you've got nothing to hide.

Not to mention the additional costs of labor, time, and research going into this. We pay the salaries of the people who treat us all like suspected terrorists. You want to reduce the deficit? A great way to start is by not imposing irrational, unproven, and unreliable security measures.

yeah, you're hitting the nail on the head for sure.  the personnel they hire at these airports is definitely questionable to say the least.  

and you're right it's definitely a false sense of security.  but that's why americans are fucking idiots.  we give up our rights for security time and time again.  it's sad really.

we need to cut defense spending and we could easily cut it by 10 or 20percent but the repubs/conservative nuts/ and people who have been convinced to be afraid do not understand how fast these things could snowball into situations where we're pissed at eachother rather than the "terrorists".  

the war on terror can suck my fat nuts.  

Quote

Quote

QuoteI think people are way to hung up on this...what's the alternative? Do you know how hard it is to keep airplanes safe. I would walk through security naked if it meant I would live another day. Get over yourselves...not much is private anymore.

...if you don't like the ride...don't travel.  :P

The alternative is to come out and admit there is no evidence these procedures have any effect on making the skies safer and to regard those rights enumerated to us through the constitution are not alienated by a false sense of security.

Interstate commerce is one of those rights.

Saying we should not travel if we don't want to be strip searched makes about as much sense as saying you don't mind if the cops randomly rummage through your home because you've got nothing to hide.

Not to mention the additional costs of labor, time, and research going into this. We pay the salaries of the people who treat us all like suspected terrorists. You want to reduce the deficit? A great way to start is by not imposing irrational, unproven, and unreliable security measures.

yeah, you're hitting the nail on the head for sure.  the personnel they hire at these airports is definitely questionable to say the least.  

and you're right it's definitely a false sense of security.  but that's why [highlight]americans are fucking idiots[/highlight].  we give up our rights for security time and time again.  it's sad really.

we need to cut defense spending and we could easily cut it by 10 or 20percent but the repubs/conservative nuts/ and people who have been convinced to be afraid do not understand how fast these things could snowball into situations where we're pissed at eachother rather than the "terrorists".  

the war on terror can suck my fat nuts.  

Are you an American? you must be one of the smart ones... ;)

I still have yet to hear a better solution to this problem. Is there such a thing as a security screening that doesn't violate our privacy? For anyone who has gone to a concert (T5 for an example) they have been given a fondling by security before entering...you don't seem to be bitching about that.

I think some people just get on these bandwagons against our government...when they have yet to actually be affected by it. Don't bitch about your privacy & rights being violated until they have been...

Alright, I like how everyone's being intelligent about this, I was afraid it may devolve into something nasty haha

First, my solution is dogs. The only danger dogs pose are the danger that I may go up and pet one.

Second, my premise is that you're not going to do jack squat with these new procedures or scanners. From my blog post:

The lesson we should all take away from this is let's be smart about safety – you can tell more about a potential threat if you sit behind a screen and watch how people behave instead of microwaving their internal organs or fondling their external ones. I'd even wager $10 with anyone that a dog will do a better job picking out a threat than any piece of machinery every could. So let's stop funneling money away from our already bankrupt treasuries into a morally and ethically bankrupt system providing a false sense of security, and get back to a cheap, fast, effective, and safer travel industry.

I've always believed that you need to fight ideology with ideology. Dogs can typically route out ne'erdogooders better than most humans. They can sniff out many types of explosives (the scanners can't even tell the difference between a tampon and dynamite). And more importantly, the dogs are mobile. They provide security at all points of the airport and not just at the scanning location. Plus, there's the psychological element: someone up to no good is way more likely to be nervous when the place is swarming with dogs than just keeping their composure for a few minutes at the checkpoint.

More importantly, if the TSA's stated objective is to prevent people from approaching, changing their mind, and leaving until they find a hole, then dogs take care of that also.

Here's a link to Dave Barry's experience (never know if humorists are fabricating things or not, but it's still funny):

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/15/131338172/humorist-dave-barry-and-the-tsa

In the name of shameless self promotion, below is a link to my full  post And I'm honestly seeking criticism from your lawyery folk if you're so inclined, because I'm not sure if my argument is truly nuanced in a legal manner the right way re: Fourth Amendment.

http://www.folkdemon.com/2010/11/18/quick-thoughts-tsa-outrage

And, ALady, I think this is the opposite - there's been audible backlash from the public at large as well as the Gov't. Napolitano (DHS) and Pistole (TSA) have both gone on the record on the measures over the past few nights. It seems that this is the last annoyance people are willing to take.

Quote
And, ALady, I think this is the opposite - there's been audible backlash from the public at large as well as the Gov't. Napolitano (DHS) and Pistole (TSA) have both gone on the record on the measures over the past few nights. It seems that this is the last annoyance people are willing to take.

This is what I've read as well, and yet most everyone I've talked to - especially frequent travelers - has had the "meh" reaction.

Anyway, dogs are fucking awesome.

QuoteAlright, I like how everyone's being intelligent about this, I was afraid it may devolve into something nasty haha

First, my solution is dogs. The only danger dogs pose are the danger that I may go up and pet one.

Second, my premise is that you're not going to do jack squat with these new procedures or scanners. From my blog post:

The lesson we should all take away from this is let's be smart about safety – you can tell more about a potential threat if you sit behind a screen and watch how people behave instead of microwaving their internal organs or fondling their external ones. I'd even wager $10 with anyone that a dog will do a better job picking out a threat than any piece of machinery every could. So let's stop funneling money away from our already bankrupt treasuries into a morally and ethically bankrupt system providing a false sense of security, and get back to a cheap, fast, effective, and safer travel industry.

I've always believed that you need to fight ideology with ideology. Dogs can typically route out ne'erdogooders better than most humans. They can sniff out many types of explosives (the scanners can't even tell the difference between a tampon and dynamite). And more importantly, the dogs are mobile. They provide security at all points of the airport and not just at the scanning location. Plus, there's the psychological element: someone up to no good is way more likely to be nervous when the place is swarming with dogs than just keeping their composure for a few minutes at the checkpoint.

More importantly, if the TSA's stated objective is to prevent people from approaching, changing their mind, and leaving until they find a hole, then dogs take care of that also.

Here's a link to Dave Barry's experience (never know if humorists are fabricating things or not, but it's still funny):

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/15/131338172/humorist-dave-barry-and-the-tsa

In the name of shameless self promotion, below is a link to my full  post And I'm honestly seeking criticism from your lawyery folk if you're so inclined, because I'm not sure if my argument is truly nuanced in a legal manner the right way re: Fourth Amendment.

http://www.folkdemon.com/2010/11/18/quick-thoughts-tsa-outrage

And, ALady, I think this is the opposite - there's been audible backlash from the public at large as well as the Gov't. Napolitano (DHS) and Pistole (TSA) have both gone on the record on the measures over the past few nights. It seems that this is the last annoyance people are willing to take.

Good idea on the dogs chode.  But I guarantee some fuckin nutjob will bitch about the wet spot on there crotch from a dogs nose.  We  
"American Idiots " should know by now that you can't make everyone happy.  Maybe we should ask the family members of the 2752  people that died in the twin towers what they want.

Quote

QuoteAlright, I like how everyone's being intelligent about this, I was afraid it may devolve into something nasty haha

First, my solution is dogs. The only danger dogs pose are the danger that I may go up and pet one.

Second, my premise is that you're not going to do jack squat with these new procedures or scanners. From my blog post:

The lesson we should all take away from this is let's be smart about safety – you can tell more about a potential threat if you sit behind a screen and watch how people behave instead of microwaving their internal organs or fondling their external ones. I'd even wager $10 with anyone that a dog will do a better job picking out a threat than any piece of machinery every could. So let's stop funneling money away from our already bankrupt treasuries into a morally and ethically bankrupt system providing a false sense of security, and get back to a cheap, fast, effective, and safer travel industry.

I've always believed that you need to fight ideology with ideology. Dogs can typically route out ne'erdogooders better than most humans. They can sniff out many types of explosives (the scanners can't even tell the difference between a tampon and dynamite). And more importantly, the dogs are mobile. They provide security at all points of the airport and not just at the scanning location. Plus, there's the psychological element: someone up to no good is way more likely to be nervous when the place is swarming with dogs than just keeping their composure for a few minutes at the checkpoint.

More importantly, if the TSA's stated objective is to prevent people from approaching, changing their mind, and leaving until they find a hole, then dogs take care of that also.

Here's a link to Dave Barry's experience (never know if humorists are fabricating things or not, but it's still funny):

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/15/131338172/humorist-dave-barry-and-the-tsa

In the name of shameless self promotion, below is a link to my full  post And I'm honestly seeking criticism from your lawyery folk if you're so inclined, because I'm not sure if my argument is truly nuanced in a legal manner the right way re: Fourth Amendment.

http://www.folkdemon.com/2010/11/18/quick-thoughts-tsa-outrage

And, ALady, I think this is the opposite - there's been audible backlash from the public at large as well as the Gov't. Napolitano (DHS) and Pistole (TSA) have both gone on the record on the measures over the past few nights. It seems that this is the last annoyance people are willing to take.

Good idea on the dogs chode.  But I guarantee some fuckin nutjob will bitch about the wet spot on there crotch from a dogs nose.  We  
"American Idiots " should know by now that you can't make everyone happy.  Maybe we should ask the family members of the 2752  people that died in the twin towers what they want.

I'd like to think the gov't would react in a logical manner to a wet nose-ish complaint (perhaps an innate fear of dogs, or allergies) and say "it's not a constitutional invasion" in the same was as microradation.

I'm not gonna pretend to be a 9/11 victim. I did leave Madrid a few hours before the bombs went off, and was on one of the trains that blew up (imagine waking up in Amsterdam to news like that). I still say that if you want to combat ideology like that, don't clamp down. Show that their tactics WON'T affect us.

Maybe I've got my facts wrong, but the only thing that should ahve been caught by airport security were the box cutters, no? If anything, this absurd reaction is because that asshole tried lighting his farts last xmas.

this was on Drudge today, kinda scary.

(http://www.drudgereport.com/tsa3.jpg)

I was thinking the same thing with dogs. I was wondering why we rarely see them in airports...they can be trained to smell anything...even cancer cells.

QuoteI was thinking the same thing with dogs. I was wondering why we rarely see them in airports...they can be trained to smell anything...even cancer cells.

I also think they're good because they can smell fear.

Quote

QuoteI was thinking the same thing with dogs. I was wondering why we rarely see them in airports...they can be trained to smell anything...even cancer cells.

I also think they're good because they can smell fear.

We have beagles patrolling all our aiports in Australia, mainly to detect drugs 'n stuff though... The only problem is their sooo cute but you're not allowed to pat them which sucks.

I went through one of the xray thingys when I flew home last month. I just stood on the foot marks, raised my arms and let the machine do it's thing. Honestly didn't even give it a second thought. I mean we put mobile phones to our ears, microwave our food, sit laptops on our genitals. What's the diff?

I suspect that explosive sniffing dogs are not easily rushed to every airport in the US.  Also, it may scare people (abu graib flashback), harm allergy sufferers etc.  Nothing but speculation but dog training takes a long time.  Years I bet.  

Its easier to spend millions on technology, tested or not.

Quote

Quote

QuoteI was thinking the same thing with dogs. I was wondering why we rarely see them in airports...they can be trained to smell anything...even cancer cells.

I also think they're good because they can smell fear.

We have beagles patrolling all our aiports in Australia, mainly to detect drugs 'n stuff though... The only problem is their sooo cute but you're not allowed to pat them which sucks.

I went through one of the xray thingys when I flew home last month. I just stood on the foot marks, raised my arms and let the machine do it's thing. Honestly didn't even give it a second thought. I mean we put mobile phones to our ears, microwave our food, sit laptops on our genitals. What's the diff?

The diff is that you get to choose to do those things. While flying may be a "choice", for many it may not be. And if the choice is to do that scan or be fondled is the only option, it futher removes that choice. Not to mention that using a phone/nuking food/laptops on balls don't show another person your nipples/dick length/tampon/csection scars, are different types of radiation, and there's a social utility in them.

Also, when you microwave your food/use your cell phone/use your laptop, it's not on the taxpayer dime. I also view these ineffective machines as a shining example of excessive spending by the gov't under the banner of "terrorists will kill you if we don't"

QuoteI suspect that explosive sniffing dogs are not easily rushed to every airport in the US.  Also, it may scare people (abu graib flashback), harm allergy sufferers etc.  Nothing but speculation but dog training takes a long time.  Years I bet.  

Its easier to spend millions on technology, tested or not.

Scaring people is part of the benefit - if you're up to no good, you might be more likely to abort if the dog freaks you out. If you suffer allergies, it definitely sucks. But would you rather get blasted with radiation or get the sniffles?

Quote

QuoteI suspect that explosive sniffing dogs are not easily rushed to every airport in the US.  Also, it may scare people (abu graib flashback), harm allergy sufferers etc.  Nothing but speculation but dog training takes a long time.  Years I bet.  

Its easier to spend millions on technology, tested or not.

Scaring people is part of the benefit - if you're up to no good, you might be more likely to abort if the dog freaks you out. If you suffer allergies, it definitely sucks. But would you rather get blasted with radiation or get the sniffles?

I agree with you, I feel we should follow the lead of El AL the Israeli airline, they do interviews of every passenger.  

Quote

Quote

Quote

QuoteI think people are way to hung up on this...what's the alternative? Do you know how hard it is to keep airplanes safe. I would walk through security naked if it meant I would live another day. Get over yourselves...not much is private anymore.

...if you don't like the ride...don't travel.  :P

The alternative is to come out and admit there is no evidence these procedures have any effect on making the skies safer and to regard those rights enumerated to us through the constitution are not alienated by a false sense of security.

Interstate commerce is one of those rights.

Saying we should not travel if we don't want to be strip searched makes about as much sense as saying you don't mind if the cops randomly rummage through your home because you've got nothing to hide.

Not to mention the additional costs of labor, time, and research going into this. We pay the salaries of the people who treat us all like suspected terrorists. You want to reduce the deficit? A great way to start is by not imposing irrational, unproven, and unreliable security measures.

yeah, you're hitting the nail on the head for sure.  the personnel they hire at these airports is definitely questionable to say the least.  

and you're right it's definitely a false sense of security.  but that's why [highlight]americans are fucking idiots[/highlight].  we give up our rights for security time and time again.  it's sad really.

we need to cut defense spending and we could easily cut it by 10 or 20percent but the repubs/conservative nuts/ and people who have been convinced to be afraid do not understand how fast these things could snowball into situations where we're pissed at eachother rather than the "terrorists".  

the war on terror can suck my fat nuts.  

Are you an American? you must be one of the smart ones... ;)

I still have yet to hear a better solution to this problem. Is there such a thing as a security screening that doesn't violate our privacy? For anyone who has gone to a concert (T5 for an example) they have been given a fondling by security before entering...you don't seem to be bitching about that.

I think some people just get on these bandwagons against our government...when they have yet to actually be affected by it. Don't bitch about your privacy & rights being violated until they have been...

they fondled you guys at T5?  that's pretty fucked up.  it's a concert not customs.  

if we let these security guards play with our balls and vaginas at the airport the terrorists have won.  

the dog idea is good but nobody will every compromise for something like that now.  they have been given the power to touch balls and boobs, if they change anything I doubt it will be that much different than how they're doing things now.  unless you do this on an international scale it's sorta pointless.    

The pat down at T5 is not the same thing. They're not cupping tits, feeling inside bras, going up and into your chode. If they were, you should have complained.

Quote

QuoteI was thinking the same thing with dogs. I was wondering why we rarely see them in airports...they can be trained to smell anything...even cancer cells.

I also think they're good because they can smell fear.

Good thing no one's afraid to fly!   ;D ;)

Quote

Quote

QuoteI was thinking the same thing with dogs. I was wondering why we rarely see them in airports...they can be trained to smell anything...even cancer cells.

I also think they're good because they can smell fear.

Good thing no one's afraid to fly!   ;D ;)

Question: do you look into the people who look nervous or the people who look calm?

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

QuoteI think people are way to hung up on this...what's the alternative? Do you know how hard it is to keep airplanes safe. I would walk through security naked if it meant I would live another day. Get over yourselves...not much is private anymore.

...if you don't like the ride...don't travel.  :P

The alternative is to come out and admit there is no evidence these procedures have any effect on making the skies safer and to regard those rights enumerated to us through the constitution are not alienated by a false sense of security.

Interstate commerce is one of those rights.

Saying we should not travel if we don't want to be strip searched makes about as much sense as saying you don't mind if the cops randomly rummage through your home because you've got nothing to hide.

Not to mention the additional costs of labor, time, and research going into this. We pay the salaries of the people who treat us all like suspected terrorists. You want to reduce the deficit? A great way to start is by not imposing irrational, unproven, and unreliable security measures.

yeah, you're hitting the nail on the head for sure.  the personnel they hire at these airports is definitely questionable to say the least.  

and you're right it's definitely a false sense of security.  but that's why [highlight]americans are fucking idiots[/highlight].  we give up our rights for security time and time again.  it's sad really.

we need to cut defense spending and we could easily cut it by 10 or 20percent but the repubs/conservative nuts/ and people who have been convinced to be afraid do not understand how fast these things could snowball into situations where we're pissed at eachother rather than the "terrorists".  

the war on terror can suck my fat nuts.  

Are you an American? you must be one of the smart ones... ;)

I still have yet to hear a better solution to this problem. Is there such a thing as a security screening that doesn't violate our privacy? For anyone who has gone to a concert (T5 for an example) they have been given a fondling by security before entering...you don't seem to be bitching about that.

I think some people just get on these bandwagons against our government...when they have yet to actually be affected by it. Don't bitch about your privacy & rights being violated until they have been...

they fondled you guys at T5?  that's pretty fucked up.  it's a concert not customs.  

if we let these security guards play with our balls and vaginas at the airport the terrorists have won.  

the dog idea is good but nobody will every compromise for something like that now.  [highlight]they have been given the power to touch balls and boobs[/highlight], if they change anything I doubt it will be that much different than how they're doing things now.  unless you do this on an international scale it's sorta pointless.    

Do you actually think the security agents are enjoying this? I would hate to have this as my job. I could not imagine having to touch that many people. I am beginning to question your intelligence SIGS...you must be one of those fucking American idiot. I'm sorry...I was just regurgitating your words of knowledge...

They didn't touch our junk at T5, but I was still touched.

The thing with this new system is that it's new. When they first started using the air scanners, everyone was bitching about the same issues...
In a couple of months (even weeks) this won't even be a concern. I think the world is a bit fucked up right now, and if they need to look at or touch my junk to make it safer it's all good. If it doesn't work...they will move on to looking at the things in my bag...oh wait, they already do that.

yes bigsky, I do believe that some of these security guards enjoy this.  look at that security dude in the picture above.  he's lovin his job.

you can question my intelligence but all it's going to do is make me destroy you mentally.  I'm good at being an asshole so don't fuck with me.

it's always funny when people argue that the american public as a whole isn't a bunch of hypersensitive, misinformed, idiots.

and also, if they didn't fondle your balls at T5 then it's not the same thing at all.  if these same procedures went down at a concert there would be lawsuits upon lawsuits.  

Well written Choder.  I've been out of the loop on this but first I wanna dig up the TSA statutes and regulations under which their authority for this arises.  Any statutory guidance would be appreciated as I don't have access to Lexis/Westlaw at home.  And I agree, at its core, this is an egregious violation of the 4th as an unreasonable search of one's person.

Hey Bigsky, I will say that I have had my rights violated on numerous occasions and it sucks big time.  The point of all resistance to issues such as this is to combat it before one suffers the ignominy of being singled out publicly for one reason or another.  In 1998, I had my playstation taken apart at Laguardia.  I looked like a terrorist with my beard.  It sucked but they were doing their job.

Quote

Quote

Quote

QuoteI was thinking the same thing with dogs. I was wondering why we rarely see them in airports...they can be trained to smell anything...even cancer cells.

I also think they're good because they can smell fear.

Good thing no one's afraid to fly!   ;D ;)

Question: do you look into the people who look nervous or the people who look calm?

BOTH.

Quoteyes bigsky, I do believe that some of these security guards enjoy this.  look at that security dude in the picture above.  he's lovin his job.

you can question my intelligence but [highlight]all it's going to do is make me destroy you mentally.  I'm good at being an asshole so don't fuck with me.[/highlight]

it's always funny when people argue that the american public as a whole isn't a bunch of hypersensitive, misinformed, idiots.

and also, if they didn't fondle your balls at T5 then it's not the same thing at all.  if these same procedures went down at a concert there would be lawsuits upon lawsuits.  

SIGS...I'll smoke your ass like that bong hit I just took in your room

I was wondering something...have they been touching juveniles?


Here is a link about the TSA
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101119/ap_on_re_us/us_airport_security_private_screeners

today in other world news related to air transportation:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8142463/Bomb-found-on-Germany-bound-plane-in-Namibia-police-say.html

I think it would be pretty funny if someone put a big dildo in their pants just to mess with the TSA... ;D

QuoteI still say that if you want to combat ideology like that, don't clamp down. Show that their tactics WON'T affect us.

THIS.  We will never win if we let terrorism take away our freedom.  

QuoteWhat are three things that cost over $100?

5 of these

(http://www.kitchencontraptions.com/images/juicer.jpg)

Quote
Good idea on the dogs chode.  But I guarantee some fuckin nutjob will bitch about the wet spot on there crotch from a dogs nose.

Im on the border on this, but I think Id rather have my nuts touched by some security guard than a dog so close to my junk that my crotch is wet...I dont trust dogs and last thing I need as Im boarding my flight is Rin Tin Tin having a sausage sandwich for lunch.

Also, If I ever go thru one of those xray scanners, I hope I have a raging boner

Quote

Quote
Good idea on the dogs chode.  But I guarantee some fuckin nutjob will bitch about the wet spot on there crotch from a dogs nose.

Im on the border on this, but I think Id rather have my nuts touched by some security guard than a dog so close to my junk that my crotch is wet...I dont trust dogs and last thing I need as Im boarding my flight is Rin Tin Tin having a sausage sandwich for lunch.

[highlight]Also, If I ever go thru one of those xray scanners, I hope I have a raging boner[/highlight]

Miss ya, capt.  ;D ;D ;D

Back five!

bravo on the rin tin tin reference.  quality shit. haha

There are a lot of anecdotal news stories about who's been "molested".

the 3 year old (from 2 years ago) (http://www.nydailynews.com/travel/2010/11/17/2010-11-17_stop_touching_me_tsas_security_patdown_of_3yearold_girl_caught_on_camera_.html)

TSA agents whip out a woman's boobs in public then mock her (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330569/Airport-security-staff-caught-camera-body-searching-crying-3-year-old-girl.html)

However, I don't really fault the agents. To quote Lucas Jackson the War Hero, "Callin it yer job don't make it right, boss". I do feel bad for these people - imagine you're told to do this to people day in and day out, many of whom are tired, cranky, rushed, nervous, don't speak English, don't know what to do, filthy, stinky, etc, and if you don't you either worry you'll get fired or cause a disaster.

It's that the TSA has put them - and us - in this situation, and we're paying for the privilege.

Also, rest assured if you try and be a punk about it you'll get in trouble for "interfering" or some shit. Though I'd like to make a shirt that revealed a hidden message upon being scanned.

QuoteThere are a lot of anecdotal news stories about who's been "molested".

the 3 year old (from 2 years ago) (http://www.nydailynews.com/travel/2010/11/17/2010-11-17_stop_touching_me_tsas_security_patdown_of_3yearold_girl_caught_on_camera_.html)

TSA agents whip out a woman's boobs in public then mock her (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330569/Airport-security-staff-caught-camera-body-searching-crying-3-year-old-girl.html)

However, I don't really fault the agents. To quote Lucas Jackson the War Hero, "Callin it yer job don't make it right, boss". I do feel bad for these people - imagine you're told to do this to people day in and day out, many of whom are tired, cranky, rushed, nervous, don't speak English, don't know what to do, filthy, stinky, etc, and if you don't you either worry you'll get fired or cause a disaster.

It's that the TSA has put them - and us - in this situation, and we're paying for the privilege.

Also, rest assured if you try and be a punk about it you'll get in trouble for "interfering" or some shit. Though I'd like to make a shirt that revealed a hidden message upon being scanned.

I was thinking about getting some kinda metallic tattoo into my stomach under the skin so when I get x-ray'd it says something like "Mouth Goes Here" with an arrow pointing to my cock.  If they want to see my pee pee so be it.  I've been thinking of ways to smuggle weed thru I figured I could get a leather wallet and undo the fabric, grind up the herb and line the fucker so it's solid and then sew the bitch back up.  I bet I could get thru if there aren't dogs.  if I could get thru with weed, or even sort of come up with ideas on how to then other people are thinking of way crazier shit already.  

It's like trying to stop people from downloading illegal stuff on the internet.  the only way that's going to happen is if the internet is shutdown completely.  we're chasing a ghost.

Quote

QuoteThere are a lot of anecdotal news stories about who's been "molested".

the 3 year old (from 2 years ago) (http://www.nydailynews.com/travel/2010/11/17/2010-11-17_stop_touching_me_tsas_security_patdown_of_3yearold_girl_caught_on_camera_.html)

TSA agents whip out a woman's boobs in public then mock her (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330569/Airport-security-staff-caught-camera-body-searching-crying-3-year-old-girl.html)

However, I don't really fault the agents. To quote Lucas Jackson the War Hero, "Callin it yer job don't make it right, boss". I do feel bad for these people - imagine you're told to do this to people day in and day out, many of whom are tired, cranky, rushed, nervous, don't speak English, don't know what to do, filthy, stinky, etc, and if you don't you either worry you'll get fired or cause a disaster.

It's that the TSA has put them - and us - in this situation, and we're paying for the privilege.

Also, rest assured if you try and be a punk about it you'll get in trouble for "interfering" or some shit. Though I'd like to make a shirt that revealed a hidden message upon being scanned.

I was thinking about getting some kinda metallic tattoo into my stomach under the skin so when I get x-ray'd it says something like "Mouth Goes Here" with an arrow pointing to my cock.  If they want to see my pee pee so be it.  I've been thinking of ways to smuggle weed thru I figured I could get a leather wallet and undo the fabric, grind up the herb and line the fucker so it's solid and then sew the bitch back up.  I bet I could get thru if there aren't dogs.  if I could get thru with weed, or even sort of come up with ideas on how to then other people are thinking of way crazier shit already.  

It's like trying to stop people from downloading illegal stuff on the internet.  the only way that's going to happen is if the internet is shutdown completely.  we're chasing a ghost.

Dude you know how they've been justifying the scanners? They've found a lot of drugs.

I FEEL SO MUCH SAFER

really? so surprising haha.  there are probably so many terrorist who fly from one state to the other to blow up stuff.  it makes so much sense to take the risk of flying, fuck driving across the united states with bombs privately, that's way too risky.  

unless the terrorists are coming from the united states and terrorizing other nations, why the fuck are they doing colon sweeps on us?  

maybe this is what the next two years is going to be like.  things are getting flat out nutty.

Quotereally? so surprising haha.  there are probably so many terrorist who fly from one state to the other to blow up stuff.  it makes so much sense to take the risk of flying, fuck driving across the united states with bombs privately, that's way too risky.  

unless the terrorists are coming from the united states and terrorizing other nations, why the fuck are they doing colon sweeps on us?  

maybe this is what the next two years is going to be like.  things are getting flat out nutty.

It's like when your parents catch you misbehaving once with a bunch of your friends. They can't punish your friends in a rational way, so instead they ground you for life (TSA domestically) and then sue the shit out of the other families unnecessarily (War in Afghanistan).

9/11 was domestic though. But these measures were mainly instated because of the underwear bomber, and that was an International flight.

Quote

Quotereally? so surprising haha.  there are probably so many terrorist who fly from one state to the other to blow up stuff.  it makes so much sense to take the risk of flying, fuck driving across the united states with bombs privately, that's way too risky.  

unless the terrorists are coming from the united states and terrorizing other nations, why the fuck are they doing colon sweeps on us?  

maybe this is what the next two years is going to be like.  things are getting flat out nutty.

[highlight]It's like when your parents catch you misbehaving once with a bunch of your friends.[/highlight] They can't punish your friends in a rational way, so instead they ground you for life (TSA domestically) and then sue the shit out of the other families unnecessarily (War in Afghanistan).

9/11 was domestic though. But these measures were mainly instated because of the underwear bomber, and that was an International flight.

I'm not understanding this analogy...how were Americans misbehaving with terrorists?

not saying 9/11 was a conspiracy when i say this, but whatever we did wrong that allowed 9/11 to happen.

Quotenot saying 9/11 was a conspiracy when i say this, but whatever we did wrong that allowed 9/11 to happen.

By definition 9/11 was a conspiracy, as it involved 19 people.

Quote

Quotenot saying 9/11 was a conspiracy when i say this, but whatever we did wrong that allowed 9/11 to happen.

By definition 9/11 was a conspiracy, as it involved 19 people.

wait I think I've got it all figured out now.

Airplanes are weapons of mass destruction.

Quote

Quotenot saying 9/11 was a conspiracy when i say this, but whatever we did wrong that allowed 9/11 to happen.

By definition 9/11 was a conspiracy, as it involved 19 people.

DAMN YOU SEMANTICS! Yeah I'm anti-semantic, so does that make me a 9/11 conspirator?

Also, if you take away anything from all this, take away some humor:

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2010/11/18adelman.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/tsa-opt-out-day-now-with-a-superfantastic-new-twist/66545/

and a general summation:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html

This is bullshit...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101119/ap_on_bi_ge/us_airport_security_pilots

Quote

Quote

Quotenot saying 9/11 was a conspiracy when i say this, but whatever we did wrong that allowed 9/11 to happen.

By definition 9/11 was a conspiracy, as it involved 19 people.

DAMN YOU SEMANTICS! Yeah I'm anti-semantic, so does that make me a 9/11 conspirator?

Also, if you take away anything from all this, take away some humor:

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2010/11/18adelman.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/tsa-opt-out-day-now-with-a-superfantastic-new-twist/66545/

and a general summation:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/tsa_backscatter.html

If we can't practice good English on the MMJ board, the terrorists have won... ;)

Quotenot saying 9/11 was a conspiracy when i say this, but whatever we did wrong that allowed 9/11 to happen.

watch the first season of Rubicon, and you might think differently  :o

On a somewhat tangentially related note, my local NPR station did a piece on the new TSA screening procedures this morning...and closed out with a few bars from "Touch Me I'm Going to Scream Pt. 1".   ;D

http://www.wbez.org/programs/eight-forty-eight/2010-11-24

Nice, ALady. Nice.

All credit to you Mr. el_chode, interesting topic, interesting discussion, good arguments, you have my vote!  :) I always think of Americans as protective of freedom and privacy and other fundamental things, but lately it seems you're easily persuaded into doing a lot of things I'd never would have thought you'd agree too. I hope Sweden won't follow, but most probably we eventually will. We're on the "fear of terrorism will make us do pretty much anything"-train too. I just hope we can get off it soon.

Woman Arrested for Refusing To Be Groped By TSA at Austin Airport (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3UWSgGI2TQ#ws)

A few people on here say they are concerned about their constitutional rights being eroded. Your constitutional rights are being eroded in much worse ways by your government than airport scans / fondles. And that's not just aimed at Americans - it's the same here.

I gotta say this Choder. It's kind of ironic that you don't seem too bothered about innocent civilians being "lit up" by trigger happy soldiers. Yet you are so indignant about having someone fondle your balls to keep you safe on a plane.

Personally, I'm a bit dubious about the health aspects of the scanners but I'm not opposed to being given a thorough security pat down. If that means someone cupping my balls then so be it.

I'd prefer it if you could choose the security agent who's going to search you. And in the great capitalist tradition of privatising even the most fundamental of services I can see a whole new business opportunity........Hooters Security Services! Just like paying extra money for speedy boarding etc. you can pay a small extra charge for a pat down by one of Tiger Woods' ex bitches!

I don't see the irony in two mutually exclusive events. Soldiers in a war zone known to use dirty tricks do not equal citizens with rights who are just trying to get from place to place.

The only irony here (unexpected outcome) is that you seem to think insurgents have constitutional rights.

I don't recall ever mentioning anything to do with insurgents or their constitutional rights. I believe in the human rights of  innocent civilians who happen to be caught up in a war. Especially a war started by invading countries who had no burden of proof that warranted an invasion in the first place.

If innocent Iraqis and Afghans can pay with their lives as part of the "War On Terror" surely you can cope with a security guard groping your nuts for a couple of seconds?

No you did not specifically mention it, but your point is easily inferred: You equate my rights with those of Iraqis. My rights, by convenient definition outside of philosophy (not discussing the role of natural rights or social contracts), exist through constitutional fiat. Therefore, I have those rights while those not subject to the rights and powers granted by the document do not.

So no, as an American citizen, my rights are not conditioned upon or relative to the way insurgents or suspected insurgents are treated in Iraq.

Call it selfish or whatever you will, but the whole issue with the war is that we are fighting ideology with force and that will never work. If we acquiesce ideology in response to an ideological assault, then the battle is lost.

EDIT: I should add that I'm not suddenly outraged; I do realize that some of the outrage seems sudden or manufactured as too little, too late. Part of the reason I was booted from school was for voicing opposition to "Free speech zones" and silencing of opposing viewpoints during the 2004 presidential election. And when that guy tried to light his farts last xmas, the first thing I said "great, now we can't bring undies on airplanes"

I've gotta drunkenly interject a jizz attack of a thought about the helicopter incident.

let's be real for a second.  the US military, Marines especially are trained killers.  that is there purpose.  they are literally bred and condition to think without remorse.  to get off the destruction of the "enemy". 

I'm not necessarily defending any of the actions taken by the troops, nor do I think there is much that can be done about that specific situation other than bicker about ethical ideas.

To put it simply the dog was unleashed.  the US military doesn't fuck around, they sorta just kill and blow up stuff, then scope out the area and blow away any other persons who need dealing with.

you guys know as well as I that War is only about one thing, Killing the fuck out of the other country to the point of submission.  that's all it is.  pointless killing for resources, power, or both. 

If it was questionable to people that civilians were going to die if we went to war than they're extremely naive.   

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. Yes I'm sure most people accept that soldiers are trained killing machines, and trained to kill the "enemy" without remorse. And of course there will be civilian casualties in any war. First of all I thought you were saying that "they sorta just kill and blow up stuff, then scope out the area and blow away any other persons who need dealing with" and that that comes with the territory.

But then I noticed that you said "I'm not necessarily defending any of the actions taken by the troops".

I totally understand that soldiers in a combat situation are frightened, under pressure, ready to kill etc. etc. But my ethical questioning of this is about when should their actions come under criminal scrutiny (and stop being protected by the Army)? And when should they have to defend themselves? If you argue that the shooting up of the minibus was acceptable (when it appeared they were trying to help injured people), and doesn't warrant criminal scrutiny, where do you draw the line? If they had machine gunned a bus queue of women and children would that warrant criminal scrutiny, or is that acceptable in a combat situation?

In my opinion you have to draw the line somewhere. Military super powers have a history of covering up war crimes e.g. the Mai Lai massacre. Is that acceptable?

If you don't draw the line and hold people criminally accountable then forget the whole idea of ever trying to convict people of war crimes on any side. "War crimes" are the buzzword when the West wants to track down the latest dictator in their way, but are conveniently forgotten when it applies to them.

but that's kind of my point.  there never will be a line when it comes to war.  war is about killing people.

I think killing is wrong.  I think war is bullshit.  haven't seen the minivan video, have no real desire too to be honest but once you unleash these soldiers, they're going to kill stuff.  pretty much anything even slightly suspicious.  then what happens? you leave these killing machines in the desert for months or years at a time.  They are bound to go a little crazy.

On top of that most of the insurgents looked no different than normal civilians. 

I'm against the Wars but at the same time, this shit doesn't surprise which is why it doesn't bother me.  War is one of the most fucked up, stupid things human beings are capable.  Plus, Bush/Cheney and the rest of the crusaders were NUTS, war hungry, plutocrats. 

I'm just trying to be realistic about the situation.  if you throw a bunch of soldiers into a war, they're going to kill the fuck out of shit. 

stray missiles, IED's, etc they're not much different than some group of helicopter pilots killing for joy.   innocent people died because we were careless.  simple as that.  whether you want to prosecute some of these soldiers, not sure, there are probably quite a few stories like this.  I'd rather start at the top and lock up the Bush Administration and everybody connected to it, including the wallstreet fuck ups and heartless lobbyist.  The defense contractors, Haliburton, etc.   If we did this to justify the deaths of 9/11, or terrorism it's mental.  we've killed more civilians than the terrorist have combined. 

I think you hit on a good point though, which is intent. Even though this is better put in the other thread, when it comes to punishing soldiers, I think the intent does matter. A squad decimating a village on foot because their bored is one thing. But I don't think the chopper guys had a "guilty mind" when they carried out the attack.

Quote from: el_chode on Nov 18, 2010, 07:35 PM

Quote

Quote

QuoteI was thinking the same thing with dogs. I was wondering why we rarely see them in airports...they can be trained to smell anything...even cancer cells.

I also think they're good because they can smell fear.

Good thing no one's afraid to fly!   ;D ;)

Question: do you look into the people who look nervous or the people who look calm?

i can't see terrorists being nervous...they're about to bomb themselves for an eternity of glory---i'm not sure how being caught would make them get nervous

i fly at least every month, sometimes more, i welcome these. i don't care if we don't have statistical proof to back it up yet, i don't want anyone with fingernail files, butter knives, even an weird looking bobby pin --sitting next to me on a plane. i think they should scan everyone's every orafice, and interview them, fondle them..and do whatever they have to do. i wish more capable people worked for the govt but what can i do about that...like ALady said, privacy is a myth..yes the Constitution was written to protect us from Big Brother, but govt has also expanded to take care of everyone's every need, then the need to protect us expands. you can't have it both ways...dogs are a great idea...i'm all for it... i don't think twice at these precautions and i think most people who have to travel a lot welcome them or at least don't mind them..

great discussion, i'm all for questioning the infringement of constitutional rights, but not in this case; privacy rights are important, but not only for combating terrorism (which we don't know if it does or might never know) but it falls under interstate commerce, which is one of the original purposes

i'm rambling..

Quote from: Penny Lane on Dec 30, 2010, 12:31 PM

Quote from: el_chode on Nov 18, 2010, 07:35 PM

Quote

Quote

QuoteI was thinking the same thing with dogs. I was wondering why we rarely see them in airports...they can be trained to smell anything...even cancer cells.

I also think they're good because they can smell fear.

Good thing no one's afraid to fly!   ;D ;)

Question: do you look into the people who look nervous or the people who look calm?

i can't see terrorists being nervous...they're about to bomb themselves for an eternity of glory---i'm not sure how being caught would make them get nervous

i fly at least every month, sometimes more, i welcome these. i don't care if we don't have statistical proof to back it up yet, i don't want anyone with fingernail files, butter knives, even an weird looking bobby pin --sitting next to me on a plane. i think they should scan everyone's every orafice, and interview them, fondle them..and do whatever they have to do. i wish more capable people worked for the govt but what can i do about that...like ALady said, privacy is a myth..yes the Constitution was written to protect us from Big Brother, but govt has also expanded to take care of everyone's every need, then the need to protect us expands. you can't have it both ways...dogs are a great idea...i'm all for it... i don't think twice at these precautions and i think most people who have to travel a lot welcome them or at least don't mind them..

great discussion, i'm all for questioning the infringement of constitutional rights, but not in this case; privacy rights are important, but not only for combating terrorism (which we don't know if it does or might never know) but it falls under interstate commerce, which is one of the original purposes

i'm rambling..

Let's play pretend for a second:

I fill a super soaker with a fluid I claim will make any explosive you have concealed on your body inert if I just squirt you once with it. It also dulls sharp objects. There's really nothing backing up my assertion, but I'm the government, so I have that going for me.

Do you feel safer?

Quote from: Sticky Icky Green Stuff on Dec 29, 2010, 11:59 AM
but that's kind of my point.  there never will be a line when it comes to war.  war is about killing people.

I think killing is wrong.  I think war is bullshit.  haven't seen the minivan video, have no real desire too to be honest but once you unleash these soldiers, they're going to kill stuff.  pretty much anything even slightly suspicious.  then what happens? you leave these killing machines in the desert for months or years at a time.  They are bound to go a little crazy.

On top of that most of the insurgents looked no different than normal civilians. 

I'm against the Wars but at the same time, this shit doesn't surprise which is why it doesn't bother me.  War is one of the most fucked up, stupid things human beings are capable.  Plus, Bush/Cheney and the rest of the crusaders were NUTS, war hungry, plutocrats. 

I'm just trying to be realistic about the situation.  if you throw a bunch of soldiers into a war, they're going to kill the fuck out of shit. 

stray missiles, IED's, etc they're not much different than some group of helicopter pilots killing for joy.   innocent people died because we were careless.  simple as that.  whether you want to prosecute some of these soldiers, not sure, there are probably quite a few stories like this.  I'd rather start at the top and lock up the Bush Administration and everybody connected to it, including the wallstreet fuck ups and heartless lobbyist.  The defense contractors, Haliburton, etc.   If we did this to justify the deaths of 9/11, or terrorism it's mental.  we've killed more civilians than the terrorist have combined.

You won't find me arguing with your last paragraph!

I am definitely on board with replacing TSA numbnuts hands with dog noses.  There is a limitation to dogs that I seem to remember reading/hearing about and that is fatigue.  Meaning the dogs become less effective the longer they are on the job so you would have to regularly roatate fresh dogs onto the job--from a Christian Science Monitor article on why dogs probablt won't appear in US airports anytime soon:
"According to the Monitor article, too many people are scared of dogs, or have concerns about allergies. Training a dog and handler can take 10 weeks. And dogs can be effective for only one or two 30-minute sessions per work day, some say. Boredom sets in after that, and you don't want a bored explosives dog."
So you can see we'd need a s**tload of dogs which, in turn, means a s**load of kennel space & dog food as well as a s**load of pooper scoopers to keep up with it all.

I'm still holding out hope tho'