An Account of Security Screening at Ben-Gurion Airport

[MineralMan]

in Israel:

http://adventureivan.com/2010/06/ben-gurion-airport-israels-draconian-security-measures.html

Final Paragraph:

"Israel, I hate your security policies, you need to find a better way of
handling security, you leave all of your guests with their worst impressions
of your country when they enter or leave your country, ensuring that the
impression lasts with them far longer than after their trip is over. For those
that think that the ends justify the means, is this the kind of life you want
to lead, where police can stop you on the side of the road and go through all
of your things without cause or justification?"

Everyone who thinks that Israeli security screening is the answer here should read this. Is this what we want in US airports? Truly?

[treestar]

1. They got pat down too

It would be surprising to me if Israel did not have the full body scanners already, or will soon.

The questioning sounds useless. Why would not an Al Qaeda or like terrorist not be prepared for it?

Sounds like the lack of disasters is just dumb luck, not due to this security screening.

[MineralMan]

7. Strip searches, too. Of course a lot depends on your name

and ethnicity. That'd work well here, I'm sure.

[LisaL]

10. Of course scanning and patting down 3 year olds

works so much better!

[MineralMan]

17. You wouldn't object to strip searches, then, at our airports?

Am I getting this right?

[LisaL]

21. How in the world can anyone "get that" from reading my posts

is beyond my understanding.

[MineralMan]

23. Well, you seem to think the strip searches in Israel are OK.

If we adopt that system here, then they'll be doing that here, too. Is that OK with you?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

24. we have strip searches now with the backscatter machines...

and they are for RANDOM people...not people ID'ed as potential problems.

sP

[MineralMan]

28. Yup. But, you know, they're conducted in full view of the public,

aren't they. Not in a windowless room, like they are in Israel, where you actually have to remove your clothing, based on your race, religion, place of origin, or even if you've visited some places, or have friends with funny names.

And yes, we do it at random. That's because we don't use such a basis for identifying who's "suspicious."

[LisaL]

32. WTF are you talking about?

The scans are conducted in a full view of public. Just google and you will see a whole bunch of images of people standing in the scanners with their arms up, assuming a pose as if they were under arrest.

[MineralMan]

34. Please see the post to which I replied.

[Common Sense Party]

2. Sounds thorough.

[MineralMan]

8. It is thorough...even including strip searches.

[sabrina 1]

94. What's your point? I will as you as I have asked at least five

times now those who are now supporting these abuses of our rights. Back in 2004 when every Democrat, Liberal, Progressive, even some Conservatives, Libertarians, Independents were challenging the constitutionality of these abuses, seen rightfully, as one more attempt by the Bush gang to profit from their fear-mongering, AND to take away more of our rights, Whose side were you on? This has been a pretty passionate fight for the left. I never saw anyone on any Democratic board even try to defend these abuses of constitutional rights.

We succeeded also. The machines stayed out of our airports until last year. AND, in 2004, when they attempted these 'enhanced pat-downs' there was enormous outrage to the point where they were ended. Two victories for the left. I was excited. But how about you? Did you fight as hard back then to justify Bush's attempts to take away more rights, or were you with the ACLU and the entire left side of the political spectrum?

You did say you were comfortable answering any question, and that is the question I can't seem to get an answer to from the few DUers who are defending these tactics.

[pnwmom]

106. I think the point is that many of the DUers who point to Israel's methods

as something we should emulate actually know little about Israel's methods.

If they did, they would be just as unhappy with el Al's security protocol as they are with the TSA's.

[russ13]

3. hospitality in tourism

I'm sorry to hear what happened to you at that airport. I hope people in Israel would consider the word "hospitality" in their tourism industry. How would they expect people to react with those kind of questions? It's as if you are already accused of doing something even before you do it. I was just wondering if their tourism department knows anything about this.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Bing a smartass can be it's own reward. n/t

[MineralMan]

15. That's always true. Try it at our airports.

[MineralMan]

5. Here's another account. Check it out:

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/israeli-security-makes-the-tsa-look-good/

[treestar]

58. For having a friend with an Arabic-sounding surname.

sounds very inefficient and likely ineffective.

[MineralMan]

93. Yes. And imagine if you're the traveler and have an Arabic-sounding

name. Donna Shalala was held up for 2.5 hours in Israeli security screening at one time. They thought her name sounded Muslim or something.

[jberryhill]

97. America is substantially less culturally homogenous

Can you imagine the language capability that would be needed?

Teleconferencing can be used to deal with some of that, but the TSA is going to need quite the range of languages available.

Again, Israel can concentrate virtually all of their airport security resources at one airport.

[MineralMan]

99. Precisely. Every plane I have flown on in the past six years

has had a wide variety of passengers, both racially, ethnically, and of mutiple nationalities. Flying out of MSP, I've heard dozens of languages, many of which I could not even recognize. Translators are available at MSP for many languages, but they're on-call personnel for many of those languages.

Here in the Twin Cities, we have many far eastern ethnicities as permanent residents. Hmong, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese, Korean, and more. I don't have the skills to know which ethnicity a particular individual has. Few people do. We also have a wide range of residents from West Africa, all speaking a different language. All of these groups fly. I've seen them on the planes I'm on. And, never mind tourists, of which we have every part of the world represented.

People who don't fly, or who don't live in urban environments don't seem to have any idea how diverse this country is.

[leveymg]

6. Is a radio wave body scanner really any worse than that nightmare? I don't think so.

The primary purpose of the Israeli system seems to be pressure foreign travelers into admitting they have Arab friends or associates and then gathering as much information as possible to compile some sort of database.

There are some enthusiasts here for the way that Israel conducts its pre-flight security. I wish they would read that post and come back and tell us how the system there is so much better. No thank you.

[MineralMan]

11. Well, Israeli airport security is based in large part on

ethnicity and religion. If you're not Jewish, you're suspect, it seems. If you're on a tour of the middle-east, you're suspect. Other accounts tell of black members of tour groups being pulled out of line and missing their flights while being strip-searched.

I wonder what the criteria would be here for these intensive secondary searches would be? Maybe if private security firms, like Blackwater, get the contracts you'll be suspect if you're not a Trve Christian. And woe betide someone with darker skin or an odd, foreign name. Into the private room with you, and strip down to your underwear. Mr. William Johnson? Go right ahead through to your gate. Next. What sort of name is Jose Martinez? Please follow this officer.

[LisaL]

12. It is so much better to treat everyone as a potential terrorist, isn't it?

They even make people who get into scanners to assume a pose with arms up, as if they are under arrest.

[MineralMan]

14. You're absolutely right. We'll just switch to treating only those

who don't look "right" or who have an unusual "foreign" name. That'll do the trick. That's the American way, for sure...

[LisaL]

18. How many 3 year olds managed to blow up the planes?

Do tell.

[MineralMan]

33. None. Yet.

[LibDemAlways]

36. Or elderly Alzheimer's patients in wheelchairs?

The TSA throws common sense out the window and assumes everyone is a terrorist. That's where the system goes terribly wrong.

[MineralMan]

38. Actually, elderly Alzheimer's patients would be a terrific

way to get stuff on a plane, you see. They can't really answer questions. Everyone feels sorry for them. For any terrorist, such a person would be conveniently expendable. You aren't thinking like a terrorist, you see. Others may be.

[LibDemAlways]

40. You sound incredibly paranoid. Terrorists are everywhere! Be afraid!

[MineralMan]

41. Nope. Not Paranoid. Terrorists can be anywhere.

Fortunately, there are very, very few of them. So, the risk is low. The trouble is that one can pop up any time or anywhere. That's why the need for this broad security effort. Terrorism works especially well if it happens only rarely. We've learned that a few times. A single incident of terrorism can affect our lives for years. As we've seen.

My odds of ever encountering a terrorist are vanishingly small. That does not mean that some terroristic act will not affect my life in some way. Certainly, it will affect those who happen to be where it happens. Again, we've seen that, and not just on airlines. So, we have to take a broad-based approach if we're going to prevent the next one. It's an unhappy fact of life.

I'm about the least paranoid person on the planet. I actually worry about almost nothing, and am always aware of the randomness of life. There's no point to paranoia.

[LisaL]

42. Are you going to be advocating for full cavity searches

if the next one sticks it up his rectum?

[MineralMan]

43. Nope. That's my line in the sand, along with private room

strip searches and profiling by race, ethnicity, and religion. I'm OK with the current scanner and manual searches. You asked. I answered. Actually, I've answered that question in several threads. Nobody's going to do a cavity search on you. You can relax.

We are not going to have cavity searches here. Nobody will even propose it seriously. It's a straw man argument.

[LisaL]

46. How does one boil a frog?

Pardon me if I don't believe you when you say "we are not going to have cavity searches here."

[MineralMan]

48. Whether you believe me or not is of no concern to me.

I don't boil frogs. I lightly coat frog's legs in panko crumbs, then saute them in butter. Very tasty. Good day to you.

[RC]

71. No body was ever going to grope your junk just to get on a plane either.

[MineralMan]

89. Odds are that won't happen, you know. Odds are very high.

If you fly, you'll probably just go through the metal detector. If you're randomly selected (I think it's about 2%), you can elect to go through the scanner or be manual checked. It's up to you. Me? I'll go through the scanner. You can do as you please. When is your flight scheduled?

[Gravel Democrat]

105. WADRespect, it would be great if you could take a second and answer the question in post 94

TIA

[CreekDog]

79. I don't know if paranoid is a fair description...maybe you can think of a more appropriate word

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9582460&mesg_id=9583479

[LibDemAlways]

82. Definitely the kind of person who believes in blind obedience to

authority no matter what the cost or consequences. Hope he's first in line the day the cavity searches start.

[CreekDog]

78. before the new screening procedures, they ALREADY checked people in wheelchairs

very carefully.

you are trying to trick people here into thinking such people will not be checked at all or not thoroughly if not for backscatter and groping.

they already are.

[treestar]

60. Our system has to treat everyone equally in these contexts

without actual suspicion of an individual, it would violate the Equal Protection Clause to make this kind of discrimination. That is why everyone goes through it. It's the basis of our system.

[LibDemAlways]

102. Oh, so rather than violating the equal protection clause, the government

chooses to violate the 4th amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. Now, I've got it.

[MattBaggins]

45. Ummmmm you think Israel doesn't pat down and search the brown kids?

[MineralMan]

49. Oh, it's OK to search the brown kids, you see.

That seems to be the theme here from some people.

[jberryhill]

56. It is *precisely* the theme here

If you are a Jewish Israeli, that fact is printed right on your ID card, so that you will be immediately recognized as a first class citizen in that country.

[MattBaggins]

44. Can't have lilly white folk feeling put upon

Dark skinned folk though who cares.

[jberryhill]

52. Learn some 4th Amendment law

The only thing that makes administrative searches of this kind legal under our Constitution is that they are neutrally done.

Otherwise it IS unconstitutional.

[LisaL]

61. I fail to see where in the fourth amendment it says that if

everyone is searched that makes it o'key.
Maybe you can enlighten me.

[treestar]

62. You would see if you looked into it

http://llr.lls.edu/docs/41-1kornblatt.pdf

[LisaL]

64. I suggest you read your own link.

"Even in this post-September-11 era of heightened security needs, we must be cautious not to let fear and a desire for protection override our privacy concerns and warp the definition of “reasonable.” There is no going back once rights have been eroded. Society will become accustomed to the gradual deterioration of rights and one day wake to find that privacy rights have disappeared completely, and what was formerly considered unreasonable is now reasonable. There is no doubt we sometimes face unimaginable threats, and we should be vigilant in trying to guard against them. However, some emerging passenger screening technologies, such as backscatter x-rays, have the ability to intrude too far and should be considered unreasonable searches if used as a primary screening tool. We must never lose sight of the Fourth Amendment privacy rights Americans hold dear."
http://llr.lls.edu/docs/41-1kornblatt.pdf

[treestar]

66. You have not gotten very far, I see.

[LisaL]

67. If you read it, you'd know that's from the last paragraph.

[treestar]

69. So you skipped to the last paragraph?

You could not have read the whole thing in the time you posted here.

You did not pick up on the concept of administrative searches, even.

[LisaL]

70. You must have stopped at the first.

[treestar]

73. No, you've made no progress

And have no intention of learning, it appears. You said you saw no where that the Fourth Amendment allowed such searches, and refuse to learn that it does allow such searches. You fail to see because you have not looked into it.


"As demonstrated throughout this article, determining reasonableness is the crux of the Fourth Amendment search issue. In 1973, the Fifth Circuit decided that some situations present a level of danger such that the reasonableness test is per se satisfied.81
Lee Skipwith III was convicted of cocaine possession after an airport screening search revealed drugs, but not weapons.82 In United States v. Skipwith, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Middle District of Florida, holding that the search was constitutional.83 The Court found that a balance must be struck between the harm and the need to determine what is reasonable.84 “When the risk is the jeopardy to hundreds of human lives and millions of dollars of property inherent in the pirating or blowing up of a large airplane, the danger alone meets the test of reasonableness.”85"

[jberryhill]

72. We have this thing called a Supreme Court, which interprets the Constitution

And under the relevant and controlling precedent in this area, requires administrative searches not to be based on individualized targeted criteria. If they are, then they are no longer administrative searches, but suspicion-based searches that would not satisfy the probable cause standard.

[pnwmom]

107. Sociopathy and violent mental illness aren't restricted to specific

religious or ethnic groups. So yes, every adult and teen is potentially a terrorist (or the dupe of one). With our very diverse population, we are unlike Israel -- which can focus all its efforts on non-Israeli Jews.

[leveymg]

19. As anyone going through US Customs has observed, profiling is exactly what happens

It's amazing how if you're arriving from say, the Caribbean or South America, the one or two people pulled out for secondary customs inspections are younger, Black or Brown passengers traveling alone. All the rest of the U.S. citizens just walk right out the airport after passing through Immigration. Racial profiling is really quite transparent.

[MineralMan]

26. Yup. And they'd be extending that if they adopted the Israeli

system to include departing passengers, too.

[leveymg]

35. Departure controls are particularly intrusive.

Every time I get on an airplane, coming or going, I expect my bags to be Xrayed and my body checked for guns or bombs. My background is checked when the ticket was purchased. That's just part of air travel these days, everywhere, and I can live with it.

What really is oppressive is being required to answer questions about one's ethnic, political or national associations without any particular cause, as is now the practice at Ben Gurion. That serves no purpose other than intelligence collection, and is a hallmark of police states. I can not see that practice adopted here, and would stridently oppose it.

[MineralMan]

37. But that's why it works for Israel. That's why they do it.

That's the problem with attempting to implement their policies here, where such things would never be tolerated. That was a large part of my point in posting this. So many people are blithely suggesting that we do as the Israelis do, but without appearing to understand what it is that they actually do.

I'm with you. I also expect to be screened. That's what happens at the airport. I have no intention of visiting Israel, though, so I won't be subject to their screenings. Unless, that is, we adopt their methods here. I don't see that coming. We don't do that in this country. If we did, it would violate all of our basic principles of equality and lack of prejudice. We are not Israel. We cannot do as Israel does.

[jberryhill]

55. Border crossing is an entirely different set of legal issues

[MineralMan]

39. I suspect there are some people who have no problem with

singling out people of various races or ethnicities for automatic secondary screening. That seems pretty clear to me. When that's brought up, crickets are the only sound. Racism and culturalism are not confined just to right-wingers. It's endemic across the political board, I do believe.

[treestar]

59. And what is so stupid about it is that the terrorist would mostly be

smart enough not to admit that.

[LisaL]

9. Last I checked Israel didn't have the 4th Amendment.

[MineralMan]

13. No, it doesn't. So, how does that Israeli-style security screening

sound to you? Does it sound like what we should implement? Strip searches and all, if you don't happen to be white, anglo-saxon, and protestant? Or what if your name ends in a vowel or has too many consonants in it. Please follow the officer for additional screening.

No. They don't have the 4th Amendment. But many are calling for their style of security here. The nice Wackenhut privatized security guard will not look during the strip search, I'm sure, Ms. Lumumba. Just follow him to that closed room over there for your secondary screening.

[LisaL]

16. At the very least profilng sounds smarter to me

than assuming millions are potential terrorists, but hey, maybe that's just me.

[MineralMan]

22. I'll bet it does. I wonder if folks who don't look like

"typical Americans" would feel the same, though, you know. Mr. Singh, there, in his Sikh turban, who's been an American citizen for 40 years. How about Akim Muhammad, who is a third-generation American citizen. It's OK with you if they get that "secondary" screening? Is that what you're saying. And you know, a lot of black people these days have adopted Islam as their religion. So, they'd need to get their strip search. It won't matter to you, because you're obviously not a terrorist. You can tell just by looking at you, right?

Uff Da!

[LisaL]

25. Since you obviously don't think there is anything wrong

with secondary screening methods, what is it that you are objecting to?

[MineralMan]

27. I'm objecting to Israel's practice of subjecting those who

are not Jewish to such practices. You know...discrimination on the basis of things like race, religion, and that sort of thing. Do you think we should adopt those practices here?

[LisaL]

29. I fail to see why you should be objecting to anything Israel is doing.

After all, flying is not a right, so just don't fly to Israel.

:eyes:

[MineralMan]

31. Yes, you do fail to see that.

How about addressing the questions I've raised? :shrug:

[MattBaggins]

47. He has every right to criticize Israel's system.

People are proposing to do it here. It is open for discussion.

[MineralMan]

50. Actually, it seems like there's very little discussion going on in

this thread. Lots of slogans and skipping of issues, but little discussion. I started this thread because I decided to go look at just how Israelis conducted their security screening. There's been lots of talk about it, but I didn't know exactly how they did it. Now I do. I don't like it very much, so I started the thread to share what I discovered.

It hardly seems a better solution in the United States, where we supposedly don't have all of those racial, ethnic, and religious prejudices.

[CreekDog]

81. but you don't object to forced xrays that one cannot opt out of

:crazy:

[MineralMan]

87. Uh, you can most certainly opt out of those x-ray scanners.

If you do, you'll be manually searched in a way that is equivalent to going through that x-ray scanner. It's been all over the news, you know. You are incorrect.

[CreekDog]

95. why do you keep acting like i don't want ANY inspection?

if you're going to be dishonest that way.

maybe you should go back to telling women what kind of underwear they should have on for their flights.

BTW: TSA public affairs said i could not opt out of the xrays.

[MineralMan]

96. You have a very special situation.

You are a special case. You've explained why several times. Current regulations require an x-ray examination of your device. No, you cannot avoid the x-ray using the Cast Scope. Not now. Current regulations require it, if the Cast Scope is available at the airport you depart from. I'm not being dishonest in any way. Your situation is a little out of the ordinary.

Frankly, I didn't notice who wrote the post. If I had, I would not have used the word "you." I would have said "in the vast majority of situations" to limit my comment. I rarely bother to look at who's writing a post before replying. That's a fault I will try to correct. Please be aware, though, that not everyone knows your individual situation. There are hundreds of screen names here, and it's easy to forget the details of all of the people who post here.

So, yes, YOU do have to get the x-rays. Those are the regulations that are in effect. I can't do anything about that, you see. As I said the other day, a cast or prosthetic limb is an ideal way to conceal explosives or weapons. The TSA person at your airport knows nothing about you when you come into the line. You may be the nicest person on the planet. The TSA screener has no way to know that. So, your cast or prosthetic has to be examined. There it is.

[jberryhill]

54. Sure, just throw out the entire Constitution if you want

"Profiling" means lowering the bar to a search under the 4th Amendment, and which will then be used outside of the airport context.

I cannot for the life of me understand people who seem to be able to mouth the words of the Fourth Amendment, but do not understand the limiting safeguards that are placed around things like airport metal detectors and sobriety checkpoints.

If you are going to be conducting suspicionless searches - which metal detectors and bag x-rays are - then you can't single people out on a hunch.

The standard for an individualized, targeted search remains, at a minimum reasonable suspicion, and not a statistical profile.

[LisaL]

57. And you think pat downs and scanners aren't going to be used

outside of the airport system?

[jberryhill]

63. You seem not to understand the basic legal framework

Pat downs are used outside of airports under the context of Terry v. Ohio - ie. search incident to lawful stop.

You not only want to lower the bar to suspicion-based search, but also want to lower the bar to interrogations.

You should really take some time to understand how Constitutional protections are applied, beyond mouthing slogans and soundbites.

Profiling undercuts the legal basis on which ANY airport screening - ie metal detectors and bag X-rays - are done.

[CreekDog]

80. what are our rights to avoid having our bodies x-rayed? constitutionally speaking of course?

i'm flying in two weeks.

TSA public affairs has told me that if i'm asked to be xrayed by the equipment, i cannot opt out of it.

[jberryhill]

85. Until there is a relevant administrative decision or court ruling

Then the answer is not to fly.

US v. Bell 464 F2d 667

http://openjurist.org/464/f2d/667/united-states-v-bell

When the risk is the jeopardy to hundreds of human lives and millions of dollars of property inherent in the pirating or blowing up of a large airplane, the danger alone meets the test of reasonableness, so long as the search is conducted in good faith for the purpose of preventing hijacking or like damage and with reasonable scope and the passenger has been given advance notice of his liability to such a search so that he can avoid it by choosing not to travel by air.

[CreekDog]

86. this means that they can force people to walk through the x-ray scanners

there is an opt out for whole body scanners (but not scanners for specific parts).

but in actuality, the government could require you to go through them, multiple times.

the other thing i haven't got a satisfactory answer to is once you start the screening, you're required to finish it. if that screening requires the body part scanners, you have to go through that --how many could they make you take?

[jberryhill]

88. "Until there is a relevant administrative decision or court ruling"

You are aware of the procedures and your ability to avoid them by choosing not to fly.

Alternatively, since you are flying in two weeks, this would be a good time to contact an appropriate legal organization to set up a test case.

The fact of your knee implant, and that it causes a disparate impact upon you and others similarly situated, is an interesting fact, which any number of organizations might wish to pursue in the context of a test case.

Airport security procedures have been legally challenged every step of the way, since the installation of metal detectors in the 1960's, and these procedures have evolved with reference to the large body of case law which has developed as a consequence of those rulings.

There is absolutely no question that the current procedures are already the subject of several legal actions, and a few more will likely be added to that number over the next couple of weeks.

Unfortunately, courts do not operate at a speed which is likely to accommodate your present travel plans.

I too, am flying to South America in two weeks, but am more worried about security procedures in Colombia than anything the TSA is likely to do. IMHO, your situation with your knee is an interesting angle, since it raises additional issues common to a class of passengers. I would really encourage you to find an organization that would be interested in pursuing this issue specifically as it relates to passengers with implanted/artificial devices.

[TheKentuckian]

83. Accepting the great and toxic overreach that is Terry is step one

in learning to love the police state.

A gross violation of the spirit of our laws on search and seizure.

Terry is anti-American, anti-western civilization trash that should be punted far out of the field of play of American law.
The xrays should be illegal and metal detectors push the envelope but it can be argued they are passive.

[jberryhill]

84. Administrative search is not based on Terry

The reference to Terry is of a _type_ of search.

However, the profilers here at DU want to have a targeted search on criteria of lower suspicion than Terry.

"The xrays should be illegal and metal detectors push the envelope but it can be argued they are passive."

No, they are a search. If you are arguing that the baggage xray is somehow "passive", then the full body scanners are every bit as "passive".

Terry may indeed be "toxic overreach". It is, however, the controlling law for the context in which it applies.

[TheKentuckian]

92. i said that metal detectors may be considered passive and that xrays bust the envelope

I said that it can be argued that metal detectors are passive but that they DO push the envelope and that xrays should be illegal (I'll add without a warrant).

You quoted my argument but failed to digest it.

[MineralMan]

98. I suspect we'll be finding out the answer to that before long.

The courts will rule in one of the many cases before them. That's how we decide such issues in this country.

[jberryhill]

100. Metal detectors are not passive

Look, one machine that measures your electromagnetic properties is no more "active" than some other machine which measures your electromagnetic properties.

I didn't specifically respond to you mention of "X-rays" because I had referred to X-rays of carry on bags, which has been normal for decades, and I'll bet you never even thought of what the leakage is from those or from microwave ovens for that matter.

However, a metal detector is a search, and an unconstitutional one outside of the legal framework for administrative searches:

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/federal-appeals-court-finds-mass-metal-detector-searches-georgia-protesters-unconstituti

Federal Appeals Court Finds Mass Metal-Detector Searches of Georgia Protesters Unconstitutional

----

This is what bothers me in these discussions. Time and time again, in search of some kind of distinction, folks are willing to accept weakening the 4th Amendment in order to say "That other stuff is fine, but THIS is a 'search'".

The metal detector and the baggage X-rays are both searches.

[TheKentuckian]

109. Dude, I'm not arguing for or supportive of metal detectors only that I could see an argument that

they could be looked as passive. Nor did I say anything about xrays other than that they should be illegal without a warrant.

Hell, even if metal detectors are considered passive, I'd say a warrant is required to search a person and determine what the metal is and what shape it takes. Such a warrant would still only be right if there was a real reason for suspicion over and above having metal (which is legal and acceptable even now depending on its form).

There has to be some line in detection J, eyes and cameras are sensors too. I agree with you but am willing to discuss a line somewhere between "don't fucking look at me" and a full body MRI with a cavity search. May not agree with said line a bit but am willing to discuss it and talk about different levels of invasiveness.

[pnwmom]

108. It's easy to be for profiling if you assume that you won't end up

in the targeted group.

I doubt that I would either -- but I don't think it's fair to the millions whose brown skin, black hair, or religion puts a target on their back.

[leftstreet]

20. Why do we have 17 intelligence agencies? n/t

[MineralMan]

30. That's an excellent question. I cannot answer it.

I actually worked at the NSA for a year while in the USAF. Way back in 1968. I haven't a clue why we have so many agencies. They haven't proven to be of great use in many cases.

[KharmaTrain]

51. My Cousin Went Through Screening Late Last Week

He travels regularly to Israel and Europe. Last night I asked him about security. He said he went through a series of questions when he was checking in at the airport...standard questions he's used to answering. They're simple ones about where he's going, where he stayed while in the country, his business and his travel itinerary. His luggage was thoroughly searched (standard procedure) and then went through a standard metal detector. Didn't have to take off shoes or belts...his carry on was looked through and ID and bording passed checked one last time and off to the gate he went. When he transfered in London, again his bags were gone through very closely (he joked about them now know his underware size) and another metal detector and went through the whole process in less than 10 minutes. Throughout the airport he saw agents with dogs and is certain there were undercover air marshalls on his flights.

His point is the focus is on the luggage...memories of Lockerbee are fresher in their memories than 9/11. When I mentioned the underware bomber passed through two such systems, he said that this was a massive intelligence failure as various agencies had known about his intentions and fell asleep at the switch (similar to 9/11) and if that happens there's nothing to stop them. He's a very frequent flyer who believes our security measures are counterproductive now and while he has a lot of respect for TSA personnel he doesn't think all these actions will stop a determined terrorist.

[jberryhill]

65. Yes

If we gave law enforcement officers the ability to ask why you are traveling, where you are staying, who your friends are, and what is your business, things would be very different.

As an attorney who travels on business to confer with clients, there is not a government official who has any right to ask me those questions.

If you want to tell a law enforcement official about your religion, or that you are traveling to a clinic for your sex change operation or other medical procedure, you go right ahead.

[jberryhill]

53. Yes! Detain people for what books are in their bags

Like they did to this guy from the Washington Post:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/11/on_arirport_security_do_we_rea.html

The much shorter, fast-moving line consisted mostly of white Americans and Europeans. Everyone on my queue was asked to open their luggage for inspection. When the security team got to me, they went through the books and magazines I had packed. A booklet from the Peres Center for Peace, which I had visited at the request of my publisher, seemed to raise alarm. The man searching my bag called a supervisor, who called his boss over. They asked me why I had visited the Peres center.

[Taverner]

68. Israel never liked tourism. They feel its more of a bother.

So I feel free to never go there or never suggest any of my friends go there.

[PCIntern]

74. WTF?

Yeah...Israel hates tourism... :sarcasm: that's why when the bombers were ruining the tourist trade, the business people and the government did what they could to assure safety to travelers and practically begged people to start going again. I guess you've never been part of a Federation of Jewish Agencies' Mission...

[Taverner]

76. Don't get me wrong - tourism is a BIG part of their economy

Beats the Vatican, even.


HOWEVER, there has always been this National Security v Tourism Industry rift

And their military branches would wish everyone would go away.

[inna]

75. Resounding NO to the Absolutely horrible idea to "Israelize" American airports.

I've seen people on this board speak in favor of it, and at first I could not believe they were serious.

[MineralMan]

90. We agree. That's uncommon. People simply don't understand

what the Israelis do in their screening. This article in the OP explains that. Many apparently think that it's all nicey-nice and some nice person just asks you a couple of questions and you're on your way. They couldn't be more wrong.

[bluestate10]

101. When you go through Israeli airport security once,

you learn wash all your packed underwear before the second time. They are invasive and the agents don't give a s*** if you don't like it.

[athena]

103. Some people think

Some (white) people think that Israeli-style security means they will be treated courteously and be allowed to go straight through security, while other (brown) people will be subjected to humiliating strip-searches and pat-downs. They are fine with a loss of civil liberties as long as it happens to other (i.e., non-white) people.

Some people claim that the profiling would be not ethnic but behavioral. I don't buy that argument. There is no way behavior can be profiled with any sort of accuracy.

[jberryhill]

104. US v. Marquez agrees with you

410 F.3d at 616 (“Little can be
done to balk the malefactor after weapons or explosives are
successfully smuggled aboard, and as yet there is no foolproof
method of confining the search to the few who are potential
hijackers.”)

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[MineralMan]

91. This discussion is about how the Israelis conduct there

airport security screening. That's what the OP was about. I'm not sure what you're talking about, actually.

This is not about me. It is about Israeli airport screening techniques. You do not know what I want. You are projecting, I think.