Young boy *literally* strip searched by TSA

ScottM said:
I understand. I hope my clarification helped to reduce the confusion that was inadvertently caused.



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.
Click to expand...

One has to look at the wording of the question, the timing, and the context. The question was (IIRC) "should body scanners be in airports?" It was not "Do you believe everyone should got through a scanner that lets the government see them naked?" It was not "Do you believe you should be x-rayed at the airport to get on a plane?" And it was not "Should you be subject to pat-downs that involve groping of your genitals and a government employee peering into your pants?"

I will almost guarantee that those will generate different responses.

I will almost guarantee that the responses would be different today (the poll was taken before the TSA methods became widely known or implemented), after more has become known about the searches and after Clinton has come out against them.

I will almost guarantee that the responses would be different if they were part of a survey that focused on airport experiences, rather than one question in a broader survey.

In another forum there have been multiple TSA types that have lectured us on how the Constitution really doesn't apply today because it was written 200 years ago, and how it's perfectly OK to operate a dragnet at the checkpoint.

I'm with Greg - I truly fear for our country.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
The Federal government doesn't have that kind of authority.
Click to expand...

Direct authority, I agree.

But indirectly they can stifle the flow of such information.

Can they impose sanctions if the airlines don't "play ball" and keep the information quiet? You bet. Consider how AA buried the whole incident in Chicago where the TSA inspectors busted the aircraft.

When government has absolute authority, there is great potential to abuse it.
 
ScottM said:
Jumpin' the gun there aren't you? :D

{long snip}

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.
Click to expand...

Why should air terminals be "sterile" areas? Really?

Most of us are realists. We know or have worked for "the government" and know its limitations. I don't expect any police force to "protect" me or my family -- they are reactive and tasked with apprehending a perpetrator after an incident occurs, and then only based on evidence, which may or may not be apparent.

So it's common sense to lock doors, put lights on, make sure the bad guys know you're not an easy mark, etc.

So why can't this same system work on airplanes? Why do we suddenly check our normal ways of life when we stroll into a terminal?

Because government now runs the air travel system and it's a one-size-fits-all, bureaucracy-driven enterprise.

Meanwhile GA is the exact opposite -- we're free to carry a rifles, handguns, ammo, and knives on a flight if we so choose. Most GA airports still permit us to drive up to the hangar or the tie down.

And yet there is no widespread terrorism threat?

Why not?
 
dmccormack said:
And yet there is no widespread terrorism threat?

Why not?
Click to expand...
Because not very many people would care if someone shoots you in your little airplane? Terrorists know this is not an efficient way to terrorize people?
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pressurized aircraft leak all over -- that's why there's continuous air flow. A 0.45" hole can't do much.

There already is a "sleep" button -- decompress the cabin. If that doesn't work, turn off the heat.

As far as multiple CCW -- everyone reacts differently. I've been in a couple of situations that could have warranted "brandishing" but didn't. Some folks are more free. That's fine, it would work out.

It's a lib fantasy that CCW folks would all start shooting randomly.
 
Everskyward said:
Because not very many people would care if someone shoots you in your little airplane? Terrorists know this is not an efficient way to terrorize people?
Click to expand...


I dunno -- seems like a Gulfstream or Citation X could do some damage.

Anyway, the point is that the "security" policy is inconsistent, reactive, and ultimately pointless.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would seriously like to see the results of this same poll taken just prior to screening and then again just after screening - I suspect the results would be drastically different than polling the "general public".
 
dmccormack said:
There already is a "sleep" button -- decompress the cabin. If that doesn't work, turn off the heat.
Click to expand...
That depends on the airplane. I don't know what the systems are on various airliners but on the one I fly the cabin can only be decompressed to about 14,000' cabin altitude... that is unless you blow out the windows or something. Turning off the heat does not have much immediate effect.

dmccormack said:
As far as multiple CCW -- everyone reacts differently. I've been in a couple of situations that could have warranted "brandishing" but didn't. Some folks are more free. That's fine, it would work out.
Click to expand...
I don't have much problem with concealed carry in general, although I have no desire to do it, but on an airliner, no way. Guns have been effectively kept out of cabins by the metal detectors for years and I can't think of any hijackings using guns since back in the 1970s or so when the metal detectors were introduced.
 
dmccormack said:
I dunno -- seems like a Gulfstream or Citation X could do some damage.
Click to expand...
Sure they could, that's why the Twelve-Five security program for Part 135 has been in effect for quite a while and why the government wants LASP.

dmccormack said:
Anyway, the point is that the "security" policy is inconsistent, reactive, and ultimately pointless.
Click to expand...
I thought your point was that there have been no hijackings of small airplanes because passengers are allowed to carry loaded guns. If that wasn't your point then I misinterpreted it.
 
Everskyward said:
I don't have much problem with concealed carry in general, although I have no desire to do it, but on an airliner, no way. Guns have been effectively kept out of cabins by the metal detectors for years and I can't think of any hijackings using guns since back in the 1970s or so when the metal detectors were introduced.
Click to expand...

True, guns haven't been used for hijackings in the US (box cutters were on 9/11).

But why "no way" to concealed carry on airplanes, especially if the carrier already has a security clearance and has already proven competence with the firearm?
 
dmccormack said:
No, there haven't. Interesting, ain't it? :D
Click to expand...
Actually there have been hijackings of small airplanes. The one I know about was a murder/suicide, though. Neither party had a gun.
 
dmccormack said:
But why "no way" to concealed carry on airplanes, especially if the carrier already has a security clearance and has already proven competence with the firearm?
Click to expand...
How do you know that the person with the permit is not the "bad guy"?
 
Everskyward said:
How do you know that the person with the permit is not the "bad guy"?
Click to expand...

States issue permits. You have to be a citizen with no felonies, psychiatric problems, and have an established residence.

None of the 9/11 hijackers would have qualified. Neither would the underwear bomber or the shoe bomber.

But even if one CCW holder is the bad guy, wouldn't it be nice if another CCW was on board who was a good guy?
 
gkainz said:
I would seriously like to see the results of this same poll taken just prior to screening and then again just after screening - I suspect the results would be drastically different than polling the "general public".
Click to expand...

I wondered the same thing. I'm not sure it would make a difference, though - I think the issues are pretty well known, and I can't really imagine why, if you don't mind the idea to begin with, going through the scanner would cause you to change your mind on the other side....

Regardless, when it comes to elections, the non-flying public counts just as much as the flying public does.
 
Everskyward said:
Actually there have been hijackings of small airplanes. The one I know about was a murder/suicide, though. Neither party had a gun.
Click to expand...

Had a guy arrested at our airport a few years ago - he attempted to hijack a 172 during its runup after being chased by the cops and ending up at the airport. He had a gun, but the cops had more. He lived, sort of.
 
Everskyward said:
I would rather nobody had a gun on board.
Click to expand...
Gun or not Mari you can still jack an airplane. Removing the guns does not stop the hi-jackings.

In an airliner cabin a handgun isn't going to let you take an airplane and run it into a building unless the passengers are a bunch of spine-less wimps. You can easily over-run an armed guy in those quarters with the number of passengers vs bullets / guns.

You'd have a hell of a time taking an airliner with one gun if there were 15 other armed people on the aircraft. You wouldn't even *try* it because you'd know damn well it wouldn't work.

The reality of the matter is that a single person isn't going to be able to hijack an airplane. Now that passengers know that people intend on using them as bombs they simply won't permit it to happen. Had people aboard the 9/11 aircraft known what was going to happen they would have gave those "terrorists" quite the ass kicking.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
The reality of the matter is that a single person isn't going to be able to hijack an airplane. Now that passengers know that people intend on using them as bombs they simply won't permit it to happen. Had people aboard the 9/11 aircraft known what was going to happen they would have gave those "terrorists" quite the ass kicking.
Click to expand...

The rules of engagement changed that day.

They changed on United 93 - and the terrorists/murderers on that flight did get an ass kicking. The passengers went down swinging.

So far the shoe bomber and the crotch bomber have both been stopped by passengers, even if DHS says the "system worked".
 
jesse said:
Gun or not Mari you can still jack an airplane. Removing the guns does not stop the hi-jackings.
Click to expand...
That wasn't my point at all. I was responding to dmccormack who thinks that concealed carry permit holders should be able to carry on board.

jesse said:
In an airliner cabin a handgun isn't going to let you take an airplane and run it into a building unless the passengers are a bunch of spine-less wimps. You can easily over-run an armed guy in those quarters with the number of passengers vs bullets / guns.

You'd have a hell of a time taking an airliner with one gun if there were 15 other armed people on the aircraft. You wouldn't even *try* it because you'd know damn well it wouldn't work.

The reality of the matter is that a single person isn't going to be able to hijack an airplane. Now that passengers know that people intend on using them as bombs they simply won't permit it to happen. Had people aboard the 9/11 aircraft known what was going to happen they would have gave those "terrorists" quite the ass kicking.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of all that and it supports my point that no guns are necessary.
 
dmccormack said:
States issue permits. You have to be a citizen with no felonies, psychiatric problems, and have an established residence.

None of the 9/11 hijackers would have qualified. Neither would the underwear bomber or the shoe bomber.

But even if one CCW holder is the bad guy, wouldn't it be nice if another CCW was on board who was a good guy?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't they have qualified? Or more to the point why wouldn't the terrorist get volunteers who would qualify?
 
dmccormack said:
States issue permits. You have to be a citizen with no felonies, psychiatric problems, and have an established residence.
Click to expand...
Like this guy?

attachment.php


He has all of those qualifications that you mentioned, well he DID have those qualifications up until the moment he started shooting up Ft. Hood. But if the plan you stated was followed he could have easily been shooting up an airliner at 37,000 feet.
 

Attachments

  • malik_hasan3-300x300.jpg
    malik_hasan3-300x300.jpg
    18.3 KB · Views: 100
jesse said:
You'd have a hell of a time taking an airliner with one gun if there were 15 other armed people on the aircraft. You wouldn't even *try* it because you'd know damn well it wouldn't work.
Click to expand...
I disagree that it might not even be tried. You presume the terrorist wishes to live as much as you do. If they care not if they die then simply shooting a bunch of people until they are taken down by the other pax is enough to consider their mission a success.



jesse said:
The reality of the matter is that a single person isn't going to be able to hijack an airplane. Now that passengers know that people intend on using them as bombs they simply won't permit it to happen. Had people aboard the 9/11 aircraft known what was going to happen they would have gave those "terrorists" quite the ass kicking.
Click to expand...
I agree with this above.

As I also stated early a scenario where the armed terrorist are working as a team with multiple weapons. They might have a better chance at success with the hijacking. Or just killing a whole lot of people.
 
On tonights evening news, they said that a full 80% of Americans support the new security measures at airports. Only a few malcontents are causing all this uproar against the glorious and heroic efforts of our TSA security forces.

They were filming at an average U.S. airport and showed how the kind and understanding TSA agents were sending all the happy travelers through the metal detectors only, and ignoring the strip search machines.

I am convinced that all these outrageous lies about the TSA will soon be shown for what they are.....all lies.

John
 
What has become of America? We sacrificed almost 500,000 in WWII, I understand to preserve our freedoms and liberty. And, now we are not even willing to accept an occasional loss of a few hundred or thousand and quickly give up our freedoms and liberty! What has changed? The terrorists must be grinning from ear to ear how we just give them Victory...
 
dmccormack said:
... And yet there is no widespread terrorism threat?

Why not?
Click to expand...

18cnd-planespan-articleLarge.jpg

There have certainly been "hijackings", but GA isn't a target for terrorism because our planes are too small to be interesting. We crash them often enough on our own.

But GA isn't wholly absent from terrorism, as the family of the IRS employee who was killed in the above Piper attack might confirm.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
18cnd-planespan-articleLarge.jpg

​
There have certainly been "hijackings", but GA isn't a target for terrorism because our planes are too small to be interesting. We crash them often enough on our own.

But GA isn't wholly absent from terrorism, as the family of the IRS employee who was killed in the above Piper attack might confirm.
-harry
Click to expand...

Looks like a failed attempt to destroy a building to me. Much like your post containing the picture.
 
Regarding the CBS poll: Isn't that the same CBS news that completely fabricated a story that was broadcast by Dan Rather?
 
EdFred said:
Looks like a failed attempt to destroy a building to me.
Click to expand...
You think he flew a Piper Dakota into the IRS building with the expectation that the building would be destroyed?
Much like your post containing the picture.
Click to expand...
My post was a failed attempt to destroy a building?
-harry
 
ScottM said:
I disagree that it might not even be tried. You presume the terrorist wishes to live as much as you do. If they care not if they die then simply shooting a bunch of people until they are taken down by the other pax is enough to consider their mission a success.
Click to expand...
Or the terrorist could just shoot the people outside the airport and save themselves the trouble of getting caught while inflecting more damage?
 
Everskyward said:
That wasn't my point at all. I was responding to dmccormack who thinks that concealed carry permit holders should be able to carry on board.
Click to expand...
My point is that adding guns would not make it easier for the terrorist to take the airplane. In fact - it'd make it less attractive.
 
jesse said:
My point is that adding guns would not make it easier for the terrorist to take the airplane. In fact - it'd make it less attractive.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure this topic will weigh very heavily on the mind of the next underpants bomber.
-harry
 
jesse said:
My point is that adding guns would not make it easier for the terrorist to take the airplane. In fact - it'd make it less attractive.
Click to expand...

How so? Since you can't be certain all CC permit holders have good intentions it's better not to allow guns at all. Outside of the airlines the rationale behind carrying is that criminals might have guns so some people feel they need their own to defend themselves. However since metal detectors were introduced that hasn't been an issue on airline flights. No one has hijacked an airliner with a gun.
 
Last edited:
mantakos said:
You think he flew a Piper Dakota into the IRS building with the expectation that the building would be destroyed?

My post was a failed attempt to destroy a building?
-harry
Click to expand...

Yes.

No, your post was a fail, much like his attempt.
 
EdFred said:
... No, your post was a fail, much like his attempt.
Click to expand...
He killed an IRS employee, made two big fires, got a lot of publicity with a big news story, a lot of people read his manifesto, and he went out with a bang. When you fly a Dakota into a building, that's your goal.
-harry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top