8 year old girl tricked into becoming a suicide bomber...HELLO TSA

[BluegrassDem]

While people, both on the left and right, are howling about little kids and grannies being searched, this NY Times article is a great case in point about why we can NEVER exclude a certain class of individuals from TSA searches at our airports. I would rather everyone get searched as opposed to racial profiling. A lot of people think it's absurd the idea that a child could be a threat to our airlines, but this is a great case of why terrorists are already thinking it's a great idea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/world/asia/27afghanistan.html?_r=2&src=tptw

[Bonobo]

1. The bomb was in a bag. Nice try though.

Shoe bomb = millions remove their shoes = Do you think a terrorist will plant bombs in their shoes now?

Underwear bomb = let's check underwear with scanning equipment.

This however can't prevent them from stuffing it in their anus or vagina.

So what do you propose? Anus and vagina checks?

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Here is the thing, if TSA was serious about security

and not theater... they'd use things like DOGS... far more effective and far less intrusive... than the crap they do

They'd also use profiling.. .it is not what you think it is, and has been misused in the States like for evah.

Oh yes behavioral experts....

And no, taking your shoes off will not stop the next bomber.

Hell, if they were serious... that conga line would not be such a tempting target, insert airport here in the US.

(Oh and yes this is a tragedy... and yes it happens... alas this is NOT why they are doing that)

[demosincebirth]

4. Dogs get tired... then ineffective. What else you recommend?

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. That is why you use MULTIPLE TEAMS

they don't want to since that costs money.

Oh and they are like SOP everywhere else, except the airport, yes even in the US.

[GoneOffShore]

28. It doesn't cost as much as the Nude-o-scope.

There's no money to be made from dogs.

[demosincebirth]

34. That's a dumb statement being that human lives are at stake. By the way,

there is a lot of money to be made by having dogs sniffing around. Ever hear of the dog training industry? I'll take the scanner any day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Actually it is not. Chertoff's toys are that much more expensive

And far less effective.

[GoneOffShore]

81. Chances of being struck by lightning - 1 : 280,000

Chances of being killed by a terrorist attack - 1:25,000,000

So, what are we going to do to keep us safe from lightning?

Time to stop being afraid - http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/11/dont-be-terrorized

Dogs are much more reliable than the Perv-o-scope. They can actually detect explosives which the Chertoff-money-making-machine can't. And they're not nearly as dangerous to your health(TSA clerks aren't allowed to wear dosimeters. I wonder why? Maybe because the machines are giving off far more radiation than the manufacturer is telling us).

[GoneOffShore]

29. Dupe - delete

[demosincebirth]

32. Dogs are great, but they are not perfect. They also are similar to humans,

sometimes they don't feel like working...what then?

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. And technology is not perfect either

This is an adage from security. If somebody really wants to breach a perimeter, they will, given enough time.

I know this, and I chose NOT to be afraid.

Dogs though ARE SOP everywhere but at the airport. THINK.

[demosincebirth]

54. Technology doesn't get tired, have to be fed, take a break or have any

other needs that humans or animals have. Machines break down, you know it instantly. Then you replace 'em. eom.

[Webster Green]

10. Terrorists attacked us, so lets do away with the Bill of Rights.

There is no possible way to be completely safe in this world. If someone wants to blow up a plane bad enough, they'll figure out a way to do it.

I'm not afraid of getting killed by terrorists. I'm more likely to die driving to the airport. This whole thing is getting absurd.

[Angry Dragon]

11. +1000

[peacebird]

18. +1,000,000,000!!!!!

[librechik]

42. +10,000 n/t

[tabasco]

43. I'm guessing you don'y fly often.

How brave of you.

[Webster Green]

48. It would seem that you missed the point of the post.

Perhaps being so scared of terrorists has compromised your critical thinking skills.

If not living in constant fear of my own demise is to be considered brave, then yes, I would qualify.

I haven't flown since 9/11 "changed everything" (LOL!), because I haven't had the need to do so.

Actually, I would be extremely disappointed to find out that I'm not on the no-fly list. :smoke:

[backscatter712]

63. Even if you flew every day for 20 years,

you're more likely to get struck by lightning than to fall victim to a terrorist attack.

[demosincebirth]

56. Safety trumps my vanity anytime. eom.

[Webster Green]

66. WTF does vanity have to do with this post?

You think I'm being vain because I have no fear of "the terrorists"?

Hoo-boy! :crazy:

[demosincebirth]

71. Why would you not want to be body scanned to be safer.

[Webster Green]

74. Because it doesn't make me safer. It is is a hoax. A dog & pony show.

And it violates our constitution. Mmm-kay?

[SDuderstadt]

75. How is it a...

"hoax", dude?

Beyond that, courts have long recogized that security checkpoints are a valid exception to the 4th amendment.

[GoneOffShore]

87. TSA Cheerleading squad will arrive shortly.

[SDuderstadt]

90. The al Qaeda cheerleading squad is...

already here. See how that works, dude?

[GoneOffShore]

91. Oh look - they've arrived and here's their cheer!

1 - 2 - 3 - 4
4th Amendment don't matter anymore
5 - 6- 7- 8
We don't care as long as we're safe
7-8-9-10
John Pistole is our friend

[Hippo_Tron]

80. Why do I drive over the speed limit from time to time, eat fatty food occasionally...

And once in a while smoke a cigar. All of those things raise my probability of death far more than boarding a plane without the porno scanner.

[KittyWampus]

88. "porno scanner"?

[alarimer]

83. The thing is, the safety is illusory at best.

You are willing to give up your rights against illegal searches for safety that doesn't even exist? When the next attack comes, I guess you will be in favor of whatever they decide they need for "safety", no matter how disgusting, intrusive or ineffective?

Shame on you.

[treestar]

76. I agree, the hard part is answering people who argue

that because 911 happened, something more should be done to prevent another one. It puts one in the position of having to say it happened and there was nothing we could have done about it and further, have to accept that things like that will happen from time to time.

That goes against human nature. Though it should have been satisfactory to lock the cockpit doors - they were too vulnerable, and that's the real cause of 911. The hijackers could well have gone through the scanner and pat down and still got on.

Americans these days have to feel like something is being done even if its useless or close to it. They are just not rational and persuadable that they take the risk every time they fly, of terrorism. (The chance of an airline accident not related to terrorism seems to be one where it will be accepted that these things happen).

[GoneOffShore]

94. Thank you - Rational thinking regarding critics of the TSA doesn't happen

[hlthe2b]

12. Knowing they were in use would also be effective deterrent...

unlike the highly invasive theater that is in place today....

[a la izquierda]

19. There are literally millions...

of dogs in shelters that can be trained to detect stuff. Put the pups to work instead of murdering them.

[demosincebirth]

31. do you think that's really realistic?

[a la izquierda]

33. Not training millions of dogs...

but I do think that dogs are underutilized in this country, and considering that there *are* millions of them, there's a ready source of pups.

[Aerows]

41. More realistic

that the current security theater. All it's going to take is one bomb up someone's anus or vagina, and people like you are going to be howling for cavity checks.

Dogs are A LOT more effective. There is no such thing as perfect safety, unless you intend for people to fly completely nude and sedated.

[demosincebirth]

58. like me? I think persons like you it's more about vanity. "Oh, don't touch me there, don' do that "

all while some terrorist sneaks some explosives on a plane all because it's against the law to scrounge around in someones "privates."

[Webster Green]

67. Ah, so that's what yhou meant when you brought vanity into the discussion.

You are really missing the point. This is about having our rights compromised by irrational fear.

The fascist assholes at Fatherland Security are counting on you being scared shitless, so they can do whatever the fuck they want to you. We need to fight this crap, not roll over and submit.

[demosincebirth]

70. Ahhh, it is vanity over safely.

[Webster Green]

73. Huh?

We've obviously reached a point where reading comprehension difficulties prevent actual discussion.

Pathetic.

[demosincebirth]

92. You certainly are.

[GoneOffShore]

85. You're really not getting it.

This is not about "vanity".
This is about basic rights. The right to travel. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures - And yeah, heard that "Administrative Search" and supremacy clause stuff before. It doesn't get around the basis of what the TSA/DHS and the other "security agencies" are really trying to do - Control the population, make them believe that 'Security" is more important than freedom.

But hey, if that's what you like, you're getting it served to you on big steaming platter and obviously asking for more.

Oh, but people could get killed! - As I said upthread you're more likely to die in a car accident than be killed by a terrorist on an airplane. Though, depending on where you live you could get caught in the crossfire between the cops and some militia group.

[Aerows]

96. The scans and pat downs

won't do squat if someone smuggles a bomb in their body cavity. It's not "vanity" to say that I don't want a damn cavity search before I get on a plane. The methods they currently use aren't going to catch everything, therefore they aren't anything more than security theater.

I don't want to get used to being patted down like a criminal just so that I can travel, and neither should any other American citizen. If we keep letting the police state over-reach, it won't be too long before we will be patted down every time we leave our damn houses. It's already headed that way - they are going to be doing trains and buses, as well.

There is a line between security and usability. The pat downs cross that line. Rather than telling me "Well, if you don't want to get searched you shouldn't fly", my response to you is "If you are so terrified of terrorists, maybe you should stay at home".

[SDuderstadt]

97. "it won't be too long before we will be patted down every time we leave our damn houses"

Does anyone really need to explain to you why this claim is absurd?

[Aerows]

99. If every time you have to use public transportation of any sort

you have to submit to a pat down or a body scan, then no, it's not an absurd claim whatsoever. They are already doing it in some areas. Life involves an element of risk. At some point, you have to make a decision whether you are going to live as a free person, or if you are going to cower in fear to every possible danger that could occur.

If you need someone to explain that statement to you, then it's not even worth discussing it with you. Don't bother concocting some semantic argument to dispute the point I made, or to derail the discussion like you normally do - I'm not going to indulge you.

[SDuderstadt]

100. There is not a single area of the country where...

you are subjected to a patdown everytime you us public transportation.

Of course, that won't stop you or others from invoking falsehoods to whip up hysteria.

[Aerows]

101. Here you go:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000-bus-stations-public-transit-systems-yearly

http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/mass_transit/index.shtm

http://www.dailypaul.com/168465/tsa-plans-8000-screenings-on-trains-buses-ferries-cars-and-trucks

Here they are, doing it at a train station in Savannah after the people got OFF the train:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1B3AubsTBo

Enough links? Would you prefer some more to back up my claim that, yes, this is being done on public transportation?

Whip up hysteria? That's exactly what our government has repeatedly done to get the American people to consent to things like this - terrorist hysteria, war on drugs hysteria, the list goes on and on.

[SDuderstadt]

102. Read your claim again...

your claim was that is done everytime public transportation is used.

[Aerows]

103. It's headed that way

That's the claim that I made. You can dispute all day long that things like this don't expand, but the proof is already there that it is expanding. They are adding 12 more VIPR teams for 2012. Does that sound like an expansion? It sounds like an expansion to me.

YOU are trying to twist what I said into a claim that they are currently doing it at all public transportation locations. I did not make that claim. I made the claim that it has been done at public transportation locations, provided proof, including a video of it happening at a train station AFTER the people got off of the train, and stated that it was expanding.

This is, once again, you attempting to get into a debate over semantics rather than address the points that were made. That means you lost the debate, because you have nothing to say other than an attempt to put words in my mouth over what you are claiming I said, instead of what I actually said.

I refuse to indulge you.

[SDuderstadt]

104. Your exact words:

99. If every time you have to use public transportation of any sort you have to submit to a pat down or a body scan, then no, it's not an absurd claim whatsoever. They are already doing it in some areas.

Post # 99. Still want to deny your own words?

[xphile]

98. Not wanting to be molested for no reason or subjected to needless radiation

with no protection is not about vanity. Your willingness to toss away your rights does not mean that the rest of us are obligated to be so ready to toss ours away. Nor does it obligate us to make it easy for you to toss our rights away. That you don't care about your rights or dignity does't mean we have to give up ours.

[mwooldri]

27. Electronic sniffers.

Always on, always on duty, sometimes more effective than a dog's nose.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. There are explosives that can fool them

But I am sure you didn't know this

[frylock]

30. they same you do with humans..

you have them finish their shift and send them home.

[backscatter712]

50. More dogs. It's not that hard to get dogs and handlers working in shifts. n/t

[snooper2]

52. ROFL

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Thanks!

[backscatter712]

51. Dogs, and basic intelligence and detective-work.

Have the porno-scanners and grope-downs caught even one terrorist? NO!!! Not one.

However, good old fashioned intel and police work, like what the feds have been doing for years, catches terrorists all the time. And they can even do that without turning our airports into prisons.

[CreekDog]

3. well if you're justifying the "handling" of children in this way to stop bombings

don't be surprised if children become adults who have grievances against the government for using it's own agents to touch them in a way no stranger should ever have permission to do.

you think there's no risk to searching a child that closely? think again.

do you know for sure there won't be errant hands doing more than a simple search? how many victims are being created by these procedures?

THIS is not making us safer --and for kids, i think it's making them less safe (radiation, pat-downs, etc.)

the standard should be making us safer and if it's making people less safe, it's bad. this does make us less safe.

[alphafemale]

6. It must suck to be that afraid.

So afraid you're okay with someone poking their fingers in the vagina of a little girl.

[hlthe2b]

13. +100000

[Webster Green]

7. What a pantload.

This fascist crap does nothing to prevent terrorism. It is designed to keep you in fear, and you are obviously so fucking scared of terrorists that you will gladly give up all your rights. Actual terrorists are far and few. Scumbag fucking pigs are everywhere. It's sickening.

This country is becoming a nation of cowards, and it's pathetic to watch it happening.

[Dept of Beer]

8. lamb falls through deceit

mage casts mournful allusion

masses turn chattel

[LisaL]

9. Well using that logic, TSA will have to start searching 8 year old

girls on the street. Because the story you are talking about was nowhere near an airplane.

[Dept of Beer]

14. But it coulda happened!

This line of feardom is reminiscent of the torture crowd that used the pretense of an incident that never happened (yes hypotheitcal) to justify the USAs role in torture.

"We gotta torture this guy cuz what if there was a terrerist and a bomb and you had five minutes to get the info out of him?!!!"

A sad epilogue this country will leave for history.

[Gormy Cuss]

15. +1

[woo me with science]

39. That clown at Chuck E Cheeze suddenly got a whole lot scarier. nt

[Lucian]

16. Yeah, it helps to read the article before making an idiotic claim.

The girl was nowhere near an airport.

[gratuitous]

35. The logical conclusion, then

Is to subject anyone anywhere to search on the premise that anyone anywhere could be carrying a bomb. And if you're not carrying a bomb, you probably have nothing to worry about. The only people who could conceivably object would be (a) terrorists; or (2) people with some sentimental attachment to a quaint old document who don't understand the realities of the world we now face and who want to get blown up (or have other, innocent people blown up). Besides, if we quit conducting our affairs with the utmost arrogance, the terrorists will win, and we can't have that.

Common sense indicates that stubborn behavior that has been the subject of cautionary tales dating back to the days of classical tragedies should be avoided. However, our modern sensibilities have proven conclusively that by ignoring the barely literate scratchings of people from antiquity, we can forge ahead in our exceptional exceptionalness and remain immune to the oldest lessons of human nature. May a thousand intrusive searches bloom!

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[piratefish08]

20. living in fear sucks.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[ImNotTed]

22. Good point

Too bad 17 unrecs have already been cast.

[seabeyond]

25. thanks for reminding me to unrec. nt

[Brickbat]

23. Are you kidding? There's already a procedure against this.

"Has anyone you don't know given you anything to carry?"

Which just goes to show what a charade it all is. Looks like it's working, though, because you're certainly scared.

[seabeyond]

24. to go thru life SO afraid. how do you walk out your front door? nt

[mwooldri]

26. RTFA.

8 year old girl, unsuspectingly carrying a bomb to a police station.

Were that scenario to be replicated in the USA in airplane land, the plane wouldn't have blown up.

The TSA Search Area would have been blown up.

It's far more likely that the bomb in the bag would have been detected in the TSA screening area before it got on the plane.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. To those who dismiss this type thing totally out of hand

It's not just a matter of some people being terrified to live their lives, always afraid of what COULD haoppen. There is a little more substance to it than that. I don't have a simple answer, and I certainly dont think 8 year olds need their vaginas checked, but this issue is different than, say, a fear of lightning.

When lightning kills someone it is of course tragic, but yes it does happen with some regularity. But when it does happen, our nation doesn't plunge into a recession because of it. I used to fly a fair amount on business and I flew about 5 weeks after 9/11. The plane was way undersold and it was pretty clear that there were a number of nervous people at the airport. Travel dropped way off after 9/11, and a lot of service industries were hit very hard. Restaurants went out of business, cab drivers couldn't cover their costs etc.

You can only do so much to protect yourself fromo lightning but tens of thousands of people suddenly refuse to fly after a major terrorist incident involving planes. And there is a huge negative economic spin off effect from that. People lose jobs, peopple lose businesses, and people lose homes.

Personally I kept flying in the wake of 9/11 and just tried to put it out of mind. The one time it was a little hard to do was when I find myself over Salt Lake City on a non stop from LA to NYC. Plenty of fuel left in the plane and the opening ceremonoies of the 2002 Wintger Olympics were going on exactly at that moment below us.

There have been suicide bombers in the arab world of both genders including teens and elders. If you are prone to hate what America is or stands for, that hatred doesn't automaticly retire at age 65. I am not saying that some TSA agents are not overly zealous at times, or that other options, including the use of skilled interviewers, might not be a better first step than intrusive body searches in most instances where they now are used.

All I am saying is that TSA does have a difficult job to do, and much more is at stake from an epic fail than just the lives of those who may board a specific airliner.

[Silent3]

44. The plunge into a recession, however, is just another symptom of irrational fear

Since a certain degree of irrational fear is almost inevitable, however, the question is how much do you accommodate it, how much do you try to ignore it, how much do you try to educate the fear away?

We could, as a matter of policy, NOT shut down the entire aviation industry for days or weeks at a time in response to a terrorist attack.

We could try to get the message out that people are routinely exercising in behavior for recreation that's much riskier than any heightened risk posed by follow-on attack, tell people they should keep flying and take a very small chance, smaller than many risks they often don't worry about, for everyone's benefit.

We could try (futilely, most likely) to encourage our idiotic media to move on quickly from their typical post-incident mode where an attack is treated like the only important thing going on in the world.

We could stop being so damned "understanding" of each others irrational fears, at least to the point we encourage them to continue, encourage people to go ahead and wallow in the stupidity of their irrational overblown personal risk assessments.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Well said

All good points that could, to an extent, be useful in mitigating spin off damage from a terrorist attack. And yes, our media would need to suck it up, which is probably the most unlikely change of all that would be helpful. Brits in London during the IRA bombings did get on with their lives once it became clear that they had no other real choice. I suspect Americans would stay in panic longer unfortunately.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. How do you explain the less than full planes

These days?

(Two factors, the economy and yes the fun and games by TSA)

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. Yup. That about covers it....

but they were more empty after 9/11. And our economy didn't start out in such a god awful state as we are in now then.

[demosincebirth]

61. Where to you fly to? Billings, Mont.? Try flying Chicago-Oakland. Done it twice this week,

practically had to sit on the fan-tail

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. San Diego-Houston

not quite an unpopular route

And it was less than full BOTH WAYS.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. Which is all because people are terrified for their lives

It's a collective rationality problem. If people reacted to terrorism rationally and feared it in proportion to their odds of being killed by it, then it wouldn't be effective.

In other words, if we had responded to 9/11 like we respond to a natural disaster with sorrow and desire to help the victims and not with fear, that would've done far more damage to Al Qaeda than any amount of bombs would. Their aim wasn't to kill a few thousand people, it was to paralyze the nation. But the nation has to choose to be paralyzed.

If people collectively decide that they will respond to terrorism with a proportionate amount of fear of how likely it is to actually be killed by terrorism, then terrorists won't even bother anymore.

[backscatter712]

49. How many terrorists & bombers have the TSA actually caught with their grope-downs and pornoscanners?

ZERO!!!

The airport molestation is nothing but security theater. It violates our rights and does not make us safer.

Real counter-terrorism involves intelligence and police detective work. When they're doing their jobs right, regular folks don't even know they're there.

[SDuderstadt]

53. The idea is to...

prevent terrorists and bombers from even trying to go through a security checkpoint.

This is like calling ADT and telling to come take down your lawn sign and your alarm system because no one has tried to break into your house.

[backscatter712]

57. That's why we need to have our privacy violated...

To have a yard sign to show to terrorists...

Sounds like a good reason to me to shit on the Bill of Rights...

[SDuderstadt]

72. All the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights have exceptions to them...

including the 4th Amendment. Security checkpoints have been recognized by courts as one of those exceptions.

[demosincebirth]

60. DUUH! Zero is great. Shows that they work!

[KittyWampus]

89. "pornoscanner"? It produces a blurry image of the body. You call that porn? Really?

That is ridiculous.

[okieinpain]

55. the thing is everyone hates the searches until some nut blows

up a plane over new york or LA then everyone will scream and holler how could this have happened. If I was president obama, I would continue with the searches and the USA PATRIOT Act until I was out of office.

hey I send as many nude pictures of myself as the next guy and I'm really not into people checking out my privates but I can live with it.

[demosincebirth]

59. Exactly, except for the nude pictures.

[gkhouston]

65. You know, I was living in DC on 9/11 and I *don't* remember people

clamoring for the sort of "security" measures we've got now. Most people seemed to have the "no matter how hard you try, even now and then, some nutjob's gonna get you" attitude.

[GoneOffShore]

86. Same kind of attitude in London in the 1970s.

And then there was always the chance to get knocked down by a bus.

[Emelina]

62. Why not just strip naked?

I mean, TSA wants us all "safe" then I suppose we can just get rid of modesty and individual rights and leave our clothes in the luggage. Wait, please nobody forward this to TSA since they might actually consider it.

[backscatter712]

64. Just wait until they catch someone with a rectum bomb...

Then we'll all be bending over for Chertoff's new Dildo-Scanner...

[Emelina]

68. Power hungry, that's all I have to say.

Like I said in another thread on power and authority, the people who run us seem to be psychopaths: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MZCHjGkTPg

Why dominate one person (spouse, girlfriend or boyfriend) when you can dominate a society?

[Union Scribe]

77. Here, take my freedom, just make me SAFE!!

Ahhh! A child. Frisk it!

[WinkyDink]

78. Get a grip. This child WAS NOT at an American AIRPORT.

[WatsonT]

79. The Israelis have a much better record than ours on air safety

and they're under far greater pressure.

They think our TSA is a joke.

I'm inclined to trust their opinion.

[GoneOffShore]

95. Problem is that they have far fewer flights. But their model

is good.

[spanone]

84. apples, meet oranges.

[anthroman]

93. Bush Buddy pushed the X-ray Airport Machines...

And you think they can't set this up, for the BILLIONS of dollars at stake, with Texas, and Utah, etc planning to try to crack down on underpants groping?

Gullible, sad but gullible.

Billions and Billions of dollars for every school, bus, supermarket...the market is untapped really...


Well, I guess I better just buy some stock in that Chernoff represented company.