the fact that ONE PERSON ever tried a crime does not justify checking EVERYONE for the same thing

[unblock]

put aside the invasion of privacy arguments.
put aside the freedom to move about the country arguments.
put aside the subjecting to radiation/nudie pics/groping arguments.

it's just too ridiculously stupid for words.


far more than one person has entered a mall or a store or a restaurant and shot people.
should we post police at the entrance to every commercial establishment and x-ray or frisk every single person who wants to enter?

far more than one person has made it past our borders without proper documentation.
should have so many police on the road that it's impossible to get to and from work without getting asked for papers at least once?

far more than one person has cheated on their taxes.
should we have enough police to investigate the source of every undocumented deposit or transfer in every bank account?

far more than one person has possessed contraband of some sort.
should we have police search every home and business as a routine matter?


not only is the tsa policy simply stupid from an effective security perspective, the damage that it does in terms of taken away the AMERICAN way of life and replacing it with the 1930s GERMAN or SOVIET way of life is absolutely intolerable. if we stand by and accept this, on what basis do we reject anything like the above? it's simply a matter of the number of agents involved, the principles are the same.

[Gravel Democrat]

1. One person cited as an excuse for the groping shouldn't have been allowed to board an airplane

Curious...

“...On November 11, British intelligence officials sent the U.S. a cable indicating that a man named “Umar Farouk” had spoken to al-Awlaki, pledging to support jihad, but the cable did not reflect Abdulmutallab’s last name. Abdulmutallab’s father made a report to two CIA officers at the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, on November 19 regarding his son’s “extreme religious views”, and told the embassy that Abdulmutallab might be in Yemen. Acting on the report, the suspect’s name was added in November 2009 to the U.S..‘s 550,000-name Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, a database of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center. It was not added, however, to the FBI’s 400,000-name Terrorist Screening Database, the terror watch list that feeds both the 14,000-name Secondary Screening Selectee list and the U.S.‘s 4,000-name No Fly List, nor was his U.S. visa revoked.

“...U.S. State Department officials said in Congressional testimony that the State Department had wanted to revoke Abdulmutallab’s visa, but U.S. intelligence officials requested that his visa not be revoked. The intelligence officials’ stated reason was that revoking Abdulmutallab’s visa could have foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaida.

“...He had purchased his ticket with cash in Ghana on December 16. Prior to boarding the plane eyewitnesses Kurt Haskell and Lori Haskell testified live on CNN that they witnessed a “smartly dressed Indian man” helping Abdulmutallab onto the plane. They also testify that the ticket agent refused to allow Abdulmutallab on the plane because he did not have his own passport…”

**Would you be able to board an airplane bound for the US without a passport?***

Sourced at the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab
(thanks to DU member KansDem for the original post)

So by following established rules, there would have been no underwear bomber and Granny wouldn’t be getting groped on her way to Thanksgiving dinner.

But, here we are with Big Brother grabbing our genitals. And tomorrow a drone bomber will fly over the next target, Pakistan, maybe killing a bunch of wedding guests.

[somone]

2. We're all paying for the CIA's failure to listen to the guy's father

is what it boils down to.

[truedelphi]

3. It does seem quite curious.

My concerns are things like anthrax and aerosolized radiation being emitted over a large population.

Have you noticed our beloved and protective government handing out antidotes for anthrax or insuring that we all have the needed thyroid tablets?

Of course not. Of course, maybe the "higher ups" involved in such matters know that those things only happen, like Nine Eleven Did, when the Inner Circle causes these things to happen.

[TalkingDog]

4. I have yet to hear one person adequately defend this practice in regards to

the citizen's 4th amendment rights

The airports don't require this search, the GOVERNMENT does. TSA works directly for the government. Where are the search warrants that are judicially sanctioned (and Fuck John Yoo) and supported by probable cause?

[TBF]

5. Most of us aren't lawyers - but 4th amendment was the first thing I wondered about as well.

Surely there will be cases filed soon, though, after some of the stories we've seen this week (especially with disabled and children being aggressively searched). Dunno exactly what is in that Patriot Act though - I wonder if it provides for this sort of thing. That Act needs to be repealed.

[Nikia]

6. Aside from a violation of our rights this would be cost prohibitive

This would be a big waste of tax payer money. Between the TSA and war on drugs, we already spend too much money on violating people's rights. Also, the more personnel employed to do this sort of thing increases the chances of there being corruption and insiders, which would result in no added protection against terrorists or organized crime.

[unblock]

8. that's indeed the point. security does NOT entail defending against every single incident.

[grahamhgreen]

7. Outstanding, and undeniable point! To the top of the Greatest!

[eppur_se_muova]

9. But but but how will we ever be prepared for yesterday? nt

[de novo]

10. Terrorism is sacrosanct and holds the absolute highest position of fear.

This is why the war on terror is so fucked up. By elevating terrorism to something greater than other crimes and murders, we are setting ourselves up for the psychological and nationalistic response. As always, the particular crime of terrorism isn't treated as an actual crime, but as a war. It is holy and USA Inc. loves for us all to shiver with fear.

When the next hit comes, we will all be ready for more war and less civil liberties.

[frylock]

17. nailed it

[pipi_k]

11. I agree...stupid and wasteful...

Even if it's a whole group of people...say a bunch of crimes is being committed by white men who are all over 6 feet tall.

How on earth does it make sense to check everyone...even people who don't even fit the description...black men and women...white women...white men 5 feet tall...kids...

People like to screech and rant about "racial profiling" and how "racist" it is, but that's not what it's about. It's not about treating a race differently...denying a race basic human rights based on the assumption that said race is INFERIOR. It's about paying attention to that group because it's been involved in crimes.

The day little old ladies with walkers and 12 year old kids and families with newborn babies start putting bombs in their underpants, then that is the day it's appropriate (IMO) to start checking everyone.

I'm glad some people get it.

[unblock]

15. racial profiling is something worth screeching and ranting about

and it's not bad merely if the premise is that the profiled race is "inferior".
dividing people by race is wrong, plain and simple, because it's a statistically meaningless factor at best and completely irrelevant at worst, nevermind the social harm it does -- if you didn't think muslims were inferior before, you're sure to think of them that way once separate security standards are adopted.

if you're trying to identify terrorists, find real criteria to justify narrowing your search.
just because some of people involved happened to be islamic does NOT justify treating all muslims differently.
ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE HAVE BEEN WHITE, CHRISTIAN, AMERICAN TERRORISTS AND WE NEVER REMOTELY THINK OF PROFILING THEM!

real criteria include nervousness, inability to answer straightforward questions, shifting eyes, inappropriate attire that could conceal something, and so on. THAT is what you base profiling on.

[Gormy Cuss]

12. Far more than one person has used a car as a weapon too.... n/t

[Greyhound]

13. But that is our "uniquely American" response to everything. Latch onto the rarest or unique

crime/tragedy and use it to impose a police state on the whole community.

Like declaring an unsustainable and never-ending "war" on a tactic, the list of examples of this goes back decades. And the sheeple just eat it up.

[lunatica]

14. Don't forget it was a failed attempt by that one person too

But it evidently was enough to scare the crap out of our government. Imagine the fallout had he been successful in bringing down the plane. So naturally it's time to overreact with overkill as usual. I'm sure Janet Napolitano lives in terror of something happening on her watch. The Terrorists have won.

[JackRiddler]

16. It did not scare the crap out of the government. It made Chertoff & Co. see an opportunity.

[frylock]

18. yep

[Kablooie]

19. Hey, this is AMERICA, m'man. You're guilty until proven not guilty by reason of incompetence.

[redirish28]

20. BRAVO