I'm not sure the relevance of your picture. It can either say "ZOMG, they don't trust NUNS?!?!" or "Hey, terrorists are smart enough to fly airplanes into iconic American buildings, surely they're smart enough to wear disguises, too."

_________________

Pretty hard to work that into this argument on any sort of real level. We have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms, we have to give up that right for the amount of time we are on an airplane. Does that mean that someone who voluntarily gives up that right in order to fly on a plane and get somewhere does no longer deserve either safety nor liberty? Of course not. Such black and white statements dont help much in a grey world.

Good thing all the invasions of privacy and long lines have stopped the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber and the ink jet printer bombs.

I say if we really want to be safe, we need background checks, passports, biometric scans and a DNA database for all air travelers.
It's all part of the price you pay to travel in the air citizen.

Is that really the counter-argument?

FFS

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Go ahead, remove security measures. Then put your daughter on the plane.

_________________

Did I argue somewhere to remove all security measures?
No?

ok

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

But where is the line drawn?

I think we all can agree that because of the 9/11 hijackings, we needed additional airport security. We got it. Since 9/11, what we got worked. It was a decent balance of security and protection of privacy rights.

Now, we have digital strip searches and more intense physical contact. What perceived threat occurred that thought this was needed?

Now what comes next? Do we start having to sit down with a TSA agent and be interviewed before we're allowed to board our planes to travel inside our own country? Maybe start filing travel plans weeks in advance to be approved before coming to the airport.

Israel is wildly accepted to have the best airport security in the world. Yes, they profile, but that's a different world over there. You know what they don't do?

X-ray individual passengers.

Then where do you stand? What is/isn't justifiable in your book?

Cargo shipping has just become an object of the terrorist's affection. What security measures did the underwear or shoe bomber go through? If it wasn't backscatter, it wasn't good enough, IMO.

I used the backscatter system in Iraq. It works, incredibly well. And yes, the first time you see genitals or breasts, you snicker. I think that's human nature. Hell, it was a big shock, but after an hour? I was more concerned with making sure everyone coming into the city of Fallujah wasn't wearing a bomb than I was with anyone's "goods".

_________________

Profiling works

If there is someone behind a screen that you never have to make eye contact with and they see a black and white image of your naked person, in MY OWN OPINION, it's less invasive than some guy running his hand up and down my thigh.

_________________

Scanning everyone entering Falluja is in no way even remotely equivalent to scanning every passenger going to grandma's house for thanksgiving on a domestic flight.

Just look at the sources of the attempted airline attacks since 911.
Shoe Bomber: Paris
Underwear Bomber: Amsterdam
Ink Jet Bombs: Yemen

Has there been some increased domestic threat since 9/11 which warrants an increase in scrutiny and further inconvenience?
No.

This is America, not a police state.
This is America, not a war zone.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I'm not opposed to some amount of profiling, assuming it's done right.

I'd agree that the image on the screen is less invasive. However, what happens to that image next? The TSA said that the images were deleted as soon as the person left the scanner, but that's been proven to be completely untrue. I don't want a picture of my naked junk getting emailed around or ending up on 4chan.

Beyond that point, if someone doesn't feel comfortable with the scanner, and choose the pat down, why should get get a more physically intense pat down than they would have gotten BEFORE the scanners went in? If the pre-scanner pat down and wanding was OK 6 months ago, why isn't it now? Why does not wanting to use the scanner all of a sudden grounds for get up in my crotch?

EDIT: To answer your question, I was comfortable with unloading my pockets, stepping through a metal detector, and the occasional secondary pat down. It was annoying, but acceptable for the times we live in. I think what we had before these scanners was just fine, and the scanners are nothing more than these companies trying to profit off fear.

oh...and for the record, I'm 100% behind El Al style profiling / interrogations.

At least when you profile you start with a reason to scrutinize someone.

That said, the security guards who work for El Al have college degrees and speak multiple languages...that fact shouldn't be overlooked.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I'm just not seeing the issue here. Air travel is a CHOICE, it is not something essential to living a full life, it is not some 'right' that we have as citizens. It is a choice we make because the alternative (driving, bus, train) really sucks and takes way too long. You KNOW, when you decide to get on an airplane that there is both a private and public interest in you and your fellow passengers being safe, and to achieve that, security measures must be taken. Dont like it? dont fly. We have no constitutional protection against heightened security screenings in a situation like this. And the fact that just ten years after we got our fucking asses handed to us by terrorists flying from one domestic location to another we're actually bitching about some machine made to make that whole process safer sounds absurd to me.

Is it not possible that it hasn't been attempted here since 9/11 because it's become too difficult to do so?

_________________
Wheelhouse

What happens if a terrorist smuggles a couple bags of C4 onto a train, and blows up Penn Station in Washington? Do we then lock down all train travel the same way?

What happens if someone rents a Ryder truck and makes a fertilizer bomb to blow up a federal building? Oh wait....he was an American, so no need to do anything else there. But if it were a foreign terrorist, do we start putting up checkpoints on major interstates and stopping vehicles?

There's a line between security and impinging upon our rights as Americans. In my opinion, we're starting to cross it. (This is what the terrorists want. If they can't destroy us, they'll accept destroying our way of life. )

You know what terrorists want?

_________________

It's a guess, but I think a reasonable one.

reasonable guess, but thats only from our POV. I would say multiple casualties , as they could easily take a bus and blow it up with 30 people on board repeated times if they wanted to, but they aren't. They go for one time, heavy casualties.

_________________

I just dont see how these security measures are in any way inpinging on our RIGHTS as americans. It is a choice to fly, a choice to put your life in the hands of equipment/human error/possible security breaches.
Being blown the fuck up because someone didnt get screened properly is far more an assault on our human/american rights than is someone seeing a non-descript outline of my fantastic junk. (small editorial liberties taken:) )

Somehow, I don't see how walking through a scanner destroys my way of life.

_________________
Wheelhouse

Right...with the measures we had in place BEFORE backscatter machines and nut caressing.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...