Young boy *literally* strip searched by TSA

bbchien said:
The citizenry is eventually going to rise up......it won't be pretty.
Click to expand...

No they won't this nation is far too pussified to even sit up, much less rise up. They'll just vent on the internet....
 
ScottM said:
I agree too. I have also seen TSA agents ask people if they are wearing something under those sweatshirts. When someone says no I have never seen the TSA make them take it off. If they say yes then the TSA asks them to remove it. That seems reasonable. The situation in the video is outside of the norm. Maybe it is the new norm and that would indeed be disturbing.
Click to expand...
I agree. I can see the TSA agent ASSuming that the kid had on a shirt beneath the sweatshirt. An adult would be aware enough to tell them that they didn't have anything on underneath but a kid might just take the instruction literally without protest. I have had to take a sweater off when wearing a shirt underneath. Now I try not to wear layers. I also don't wear a belt. Yes, I am one of the ones who is going to capitulate, but so far my need to travel both for personal reasons and sometimes for work, outweighs the hassles. When people start feeling the other way in great numbers is when you'll see the airlines stepping in because they will be afraid of losing business.
 
Matthew said:
Too bad so many of us have forgotten we are citizens...and not subjects.
Click to expand...

Agree. "Anything for security". As a former head of NSA said last week: "we have ceded our rights and responsibilities to the government".

Baaah. Baaahh..
 
Henning said:
No they won't this nation is far too pussified to even sit up, much less rise up. They'll just vent on the internet....
Click to expand...

I have written all my congressmen and have canceled our flights for Thanksgiving. Our family of seven will be driving the 700 miles to see Grandma.

Eggman
 
gprellwitz said:
Yeah, that's the problem with being a single-issue voter! Almost every politician has the wrong take on at least one issue that's important to each of us. Most of us care about more than one issue; hence the problem!
Click to expand...

True, but listening to "independents" whine about security theater whilst simultaneously voting for the same people pushing it has grown tiresome. You're not going to change them people, it's what the bash the other side with non-stop. You're going to have to look hard in the mirror and decide what you want...
 
James_Dean said:
I have written all my congressmen and have canceled our flights for Thanksgiving. Our family of seven will be driving the 700 miles to see Grandma.

Eggman
Click to expand...
Write the airlines as well. As our government is the best money can buy, the corporations (airlines in this case) need to know they will have less of it for influence.:rolleyes2:
 
gprellwitz said:
Hmmm... Next time I go through TSA will be in either bikini underwear or commando. You don't really want to see either! :no:
Click to expand...

According to the other thread running (San Diego TSA ... arrest) that won't work, either. Apparently the goal is to grope you, not verify you are not carrying contraband.
 
James_Dean said:
I have written all my congressmen and have canceled our flights for Thanksgiving. Our family of seven will be driving the 700 miles to see Grandma.

Eggman
Click to expand...
:thumbsup::thumbsup:

I've also canceled all my flights. But I guess I'm also not overly hopeful that the average occasional flyer will do the same. People can't think for themselves anymore...
 
mantakos said:
but by your definition I was repeatedly strip-searched in gym class as a child, particularly when playing team sports in warm weather.
Click to expand...

I respectfully submit that no, you weren't. You were not asked to take off your shirt for the express purpose of looking for contraband or hidden weapons. You more or less did so voluntarily. And if you had issues with it for whatever reason, you should have made that known at that time with your coach.

Sorry, Harry, that argument does not hold water.
 
ScottM said:
Next up with will be the FAs and maybe one or two others. Then there will be no one fighting for the regular people and that will be that.
Click to expand...

The flight attendants were exempt with the pilots. At least that is what John Prater of the Airline Pilot's Association has said.

As far as the rest of your statement, I don't really see how you can come to that conclusion.
 
sba55 said:
People can't think for themselves anymore...
Click to expand...
Sure they can, just because people don't choose the same thing as you doesn't mean they aren't thinking for themselves. I have disliked traveling on the airlines since the 1980s, well before the TSA. But when I have the need to travel on one I will just suck it up, like it or not... at least at this point. I think the whole thing is just security theater too and I'm not that concerned about the risk from terrorists. After all I fly strangers without a secured door and without rifling through their bags.
 
bbchien said:
The citizenry is eventually going to rise up......it won't be pretty.
Click to expand...

At one time, maybe, but not today. Americans, for the most part, do as they are told. It is how they were taught in school and at home. Nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to risk a "Time Out."

John
 
Greg Bockelman said:
The flight attendants were exempt with the pilots. At least that is what John Prater of the Airline Pilot's Association has said.
Click to expand...
Did not see that. But thanks for clarify that.

Greg Bockelman said:
As far as the rest of your statement, I don't really see how you can come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
Who is fighting for the regular people now? From what I can see, no one. The public does not have an airline pilot union, nor Congressional security in with the DHS. So who? There have been a few lawsuits filled by the ACLU but that is about it. All I really see is a bunch of whining on the Internet and in the news. That will pass as soon as some celebrity gets caught doing something stupid or some pretty blond haired girl gets killed somewhere. Then the ADHD news programs will move on and nothing will have been done. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
 
ScottM said:
Who is fighting for the regular people now?
Click to expand...

Your previous statement sounded like you were saying that the pilots and flight attendants were fighting for the people and now they aren't. How do you know they were before? How do you know they weren't?

I personally don't see anything changing with that information.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Your previous statement sounded like you were saying that the pilots and flight attendants were fighting for the people and now they aren't. How do you know they were before? How do you know they weren't?

I personally don't see anything changing with that information.
Click to expand...
The pilots unions were fighting for the air crews. That is their jobs. They were not fighting for the everyman to be exempt for this security. I never said that the pilot's unions were fighting for regular people. There is no one to fight for the regular people and with the pilots getting what they wanted you will hear less about this issue.
 
ScottM said:
The pilots unions were fighting for the air crews. That is their jobs. They were not fighting for the everyman to be exempt for this security.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I never said that the pilot's unions were fighting for regular people.
Click to expand...

Taken straight from your post #54.

Who is fighting for the regular people now?
Click to expand...

Well, given the wording, can you see how I may have interpreted it that way?

There is no one to fight for the regular people
Click to expand...

Well, that is kind of what their elected representatives are for. I can't imagine the TSA not paying attention to severe political pressure from Congress. And if Congress won't take it up, I truly fear for the future of our country.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, given the wording, can you see how I may have interpreted it that way?
Click to expand...
I understand. I hope my clarification helped to reduce the confusion that was inadvertently caused.


Greg Bockelman said:
Well, that is kind of what their elected representatives are for. I can't imagine the TSA not paying attention to severe political pressure from Congress. And if Congress won't take it up, I truly fear for the future of our country.
Click to expand...
PFFffftttttt you make me laugh.

The elected people are there to be risk adverse because we will damn them if they do and damn them if they don't. That ABC news poll is still sticking in my craw. 85% of Americans feel that the security is warranted. 50% of those that identify as independent support it, a little bit more than 50% of those that identify as Republicans support it. With a Republican House there is not going to be anyone addressing this. The Democrats in the Senate need the independents to gain reelection. The 60% of Democrats that are against these security measures are not going to vote Republican so their votes will not be lost. IOW the issue is DOA in Washington. It is not going to change unless the American people rise up enmass and demand change. I don't see that happening either. They only the rise up for is to get another beer during the halftime show.
 
Everskyward said:
Sure they can, just because people don't choose the same thing as you doesn't mean they aren't thinking for themselves. I have disliked traveling on the airlines since the 1980s, well before the TSA. But when I have the need to travel on one I will just suck it up, like it or not... at least at this point. I think the whole thing is just security theater too and I'm not that concerned about the risk from terrorists. After all I fly strangers without a secured door and without rifling through their bags.
Click to expand...
No, they can't. It's not about what conclusion they come to as long as that conclusion is based on reason. Saying "it keeps us safer" or other proven falsehoods is not a reason. You have to be able to make an argument based on logic and facts.

Oh and btw: Ignorance isn't a reason, either. Unfortunately, most don't even try to be informed about what's happening around them.

However, most people haven't thought it through. In fact, they barely think for themselves and instead defer to the government or other such institutions.
 
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman said:
Do you disagree?
Click to expand...
Theoritically no, I do not disagree. That is who is supposed to advocate for the people. But as I went on to illustrate, the reality is more people than not like these security measures and in no way will a politician put their career on the line for something less that a goal of stopping ALL threats. As unrealistic as that goal is the American people will not allow for anyone in office to strive for less. We saw that numerous times in the elections since 911. Anyone soft on security was demonized.
 
sba55 said:
No, they can't. It's not about what conclusion they come to as long as that conclusion is based on reason. Saying "it keeps us safer" or other proven falsehoods is not a reason. You have to be able to make an argument based on logic and facts.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about the government's reasoning which I think is flawed. I was talking about my own and other people's personal reasoning. For ME, at this time, I will still travel by airline.
 
Everskyward said:
I wasn't talking about the government's reasoning which I think is flawed. I was talking about my own and other people's personal reasoning. For ME, at this time, I will still travel by airline.
Click to expand...
Oh. I'm not talking about you. I'm sure you actually have thought it through :)

And to clarify further - the fact that you have thought it through and can make a reasoned and informed argument is all that's needed as far as I'm concerned. I appreciate people having different opinions as long as those opinions are based on informed and intelligent reasoning.
 
Last edited:
sba55 said:
... People can't think for themselves anymore...
Click to expand...

sba55 said:
No, they can't. It's not about what conclusion they come to as long as that conclusion is based on reason. Saying "it keeps us safer" or other proven falsehoods is not a reason. You have to be able to make an argument based on logic and facts.

Oh and btw: Ignorance isn't a reason, either. Unfortunately, most don't even try to be informed about what's happening around them.

However, most people haven't thought it through. In fact, they barely think for themselves and instead defer to the government or other such institutions.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

When everyone around you is the *******....
 
mantakos said:
I think this sort of exemplifies "we don't know the details, and sometimes the details matter". Some people in this thread are saying "we don't need to know the details", but the reason they don't need to know them is because they're allowing themselves to _choose_ the details, to fill in the blanks themselves.

So let's say the kid and his Dad walk into security, the TSA guy says "the boy's gonna have to take his sweatshirt off", and the kid tries to take it off, but the t-shirt comes off with the sweatshirt (you can see the TSA guy handling a t-shirt stuck inside a sweat-shirt, everything turned inside out), now the kid's standing there with his shirt off. Somebody with a cell phone decides that TSA is "harassing" the boy (that's what they say on the video), then they post the video on Youtube with the title "Young Boy Strip Searched by TSA". Then somebody sees the video and posts it here as "Young boy *literally* strip searched by TSA".

Nobody here cares about the details, they decide that TSA is undressing children. They decide that "strip search", which most people understand to involve nudity (and which, in practice, involves "turn-around, bend over, spread your butt cheeks, I'm gonna shine a flashlight up there"), is an appropriate description of "he has his shirt off".

This is "chosen reality". It doesn't matter what really happened, what matters is what we _want_ to have happened, and that's whatever supports the story-line of our political preferences. And it doesn't matter whether we're wrong or not, because we're strong enough in our convictions that we view it as "the end justifies the means"; so long as we're on the side of "right", then we're allowed to be wrong.
-harry
Click to expand...

We have an intelligent, well-reasoned comment here. No Fair!
 
ScottM said:
Sure sounds more like he wants people to be able to carry guns on airplanes and take the law into their own hands..
Click to expand...
Sure sounds like you want us to give us all our rights, submit to full body cavity searches, allow our children to be searched in a private room without us, and then have us put to sleep before boarding the aircraft.

Hey it's kind of fun playing the Scott game. Take something barely written by the OP and run with it and claim it was their view.
 
jesse said:
Sure sounds like you want us to give us all our rights, submit to full body cavity searches, allow our children to be searched in a private room without us, and then have us put to sleep before boarding the aircraft.
Click to expand...
I am not sure why you are fantsizing about being taken into a room and having your body cavities searched. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Hey it's kind of fun playing the Scott game. Take something barely written by the OP and run with it and claim it was their view.
Click to expand...
Hey it's even more fun playing the Jesse game. Take something barely written by the OP and run with it to the extreme, make a wise ass valueless crack and claim it was their view.
 
ScottM said:
Hey it's even more fun playing the Jesse game. Take something barely written by the OP and run with it to the extreme, make a wise ass valueless crack and claim it was their view.
Click to expand...
l
m
f
a
o

Whatever you say Scott.
 
Here's the bottom line: ~80% of the population seems to be OK with these scanners, and they're not unconstitutional in any way. Now, you can say that the poll is inaccurate, so let's assume a 20% margin of error. 60% is still an overwhelming majority.

I don't like them, I don't like the intrusion, and frankly, I think it's un-American from a variety of standpoints; I'm not exactly looking forward to my next flight. Regardless, I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that my rights are somehow being violated.

Rather than the drama-queening, which just sounds like whining to the ~80% that supports these machines, the better approach is to come up with reasonable proposals that might put some limitations on it. "Reasonable" means acceptable to people who are elected - or who are appointed by those who are elected - in light of the 60% (or 80% in reality) mandate.

And that's just how it is.
 
The alternative, of course, is calling 80% of your countrymen "unable to think," or whatever the phrase used was, and then not-so-subtly hinting that it's time for a revolution.

Take your pick as to which option stands a better chance of success.

While I understand the sentiment, and also had a WTF moment while watching the OP video last night, my recommendation would be to deal with reality.

But, the fun part was posting a video on how to do a strip search in prison. I hope y'all learned something. If you already knew.... :eek: :)
 
Good news is that the TSA won't run out of employees willing to probe anytime soon. Even Texas A&M football players are practicing for their future employment:
 
I think that all of the flight schools should have their marketing campaigns ready for next week. "Didn't like the hassle of Thanksgiving weekend flying? Come learn to fly yourself there next time!" Could be a boon for GA.
 
ScottM said:
But if you seriously want to talk about guns on planes I am game.
Click to expand...

OK, how about this proposal:

Anyone with a US Government-issued Secret or above clearance, an annual qualification as "Expert" on a 25 yard handgun range, and a state-issued concealed carry permit can carry a concealed firearm anywhere.

Any where.
 
dmccormack said:
OK, how about this proposal:

Anyone with a US Government-issued Secret or above clearance, an annual qualification as "Expert" on a 25 yard handgun range, and a state-issued concealed carry permit can carry a concealed firearm anywhere.

Any where.
Click to expand...
Jumpin' the gun there aren't you? :D

Before we should even consider what the requirements are to carry-on board I think that there should be a discussion as to whether it even makes sense to have the passengers have guns. I will stipulate that pilots are already armed, that there are already trained and armed agents on some, maybe not enough flights. But whether the public on a plane should be armed is still an open question as to their effectiveness to stop a terrorist event.

We know that the metal detectors have been extremely good at eliminating gins from the pax compartment. Since their introduction I cannot recall a single occurence of a gun related crime on board on aircraft let alone in the sterile area. Terrorist activity on board planes has been limited to edged weapons that were legal to bring through security. If guns were allowed past the check points it is very likely that the terrorist would also have them.

Once on board a plane the theory is that if a terrorist were to try to take over the plane or to cause mayhem that the armed and heroic CCW public would rush him and shot thus stopping the event from occurring. What is far more likely to occur is one of two things. First that the terrorist pulls his weapon and starts shooting. Several people become wounded or killed long before anyone reacts with their weapon to stop him. It is likely that said terrorist is not alone. As we saw on 911 several madmen boarded the plane to work together to launch their take over. While the first terrorist is shooting a second or third one could be giving him cover fire to prevent any heroes and the take over of the plane or even perhaps murder of most of the pax occurs.

Even if a pax manages to bring down the terrorists they still win. Their goal after all was not to escape with an airplane it was to terrorize the populace. They will have accomplished that with the utmost of perfection.

The second thing that could occur is that the terrorist pulls his weapon, a CCW holder sees this and reacts as the bullets start flying. Neglecting the real issue of innocent bystanders an onboard official, either the armed pilot or more likely the rare air marshal reacts but he reacts to the wrong shooter, while he processes who is the bad guy or his back up takes out the air marshall and they continue to fight and achieve their goal anyway.

The solution to every problem is not add weapons to the mix. Having the right people have weapons can be a real solution. Pilots, air marshalls are those people. The highly unknown, uncoordinated public is not the answer and is actually more likely going to result in terrorist being able to get weapons on board.

The threat that the TSA is looking at now is plastic explosives and other similar items. Lacking a working explosive detector they resorted to the virtual strip search to solve the problem. I think they need to reevaluate the risk and see if this was an appropriate solution. To date there has yet to be one person to get on board an aircraft in the US with explosives. Not one!

Opening up the sterile area to an armed general public is not a good answer either. For the reasons I stated above and also that to get any sort of CCW that allowed one on an airplane the depth of the anal background investigation probe would be immense. Gun advocates would be screaming even louder about their right to carry being infringed upon. I just do not see CCW by pax on an airline as a smart nor realistic solution.
 
I don't know enough about it, but what are multiple pistol-caliber-sized holes likely to do to the airplane? What about the cockpit wall?

Additionally, what do you do about multiple CCW-folk all pulling their guns at the same time and thinking everyone else is a terrorist? At least with the air marshal program, the guy with the gun will know if there are any other guys with guns on the plane.

And, why guns? Is there any reason that a taser would be a worse option? It seems to me that you'd want to use something that wouldn't damage the airplane, and a taser would also have a far-reduced chance of killing passengers if you were to miss. I don't know much about tasers, however. Would they be an option, or are they just not a possibility?

Why not just put a sleep gas button in the cockpit? If there's a problem, pilots hit the button, put on their masks, everyone else goes to sleep, plane lands, everyone is carried off.
 
I wonder if the various airlines have been ordered to not reveal any negative changes in ridership.....yet?

John
 
John Baker said:
At one time, maybe, but not today. Americans, for the most part, do as they are told. It is how they were taught in school and at home. Nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to risk a "Time Out."

John
Click to expand...

And with the current policies that effectively make "one strike and you're out" it takes someone with nothing at all to lose to be willing to get arrested. Do it at an airport and you're likely to wind up on a secret no-fly list, with no way to challenge it. A single arrest can keep you from traveling to Canada, keep you from getting a job (something like 60-70% of employers do background checks), keep you from Federal benefits (depending on the charges you can be denied the ability to have a pilot's license or a SIDA badge - even a misdemeanor must be disclosed on a FAA medical), etc. etc. There was a big story in the news here recently that Hair Cuttery fired a woman cosmotologist because of a past conviction... one that she disclosed when hired.

The government has effectively made it impossible to protest their policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top