Someone needs to sue the TSA

[BellaBellucci]

http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/...y-between.html

Refuse the X-Ray Porn Scanner and these are the consequences. Note the ironically creepy announcements in the background: 'airport security is everyone's responsibility' (or something along those lines).

This guy was a prophet:



Amen.

~BB~

[giovanni_hotel]

The only folks who should be screened are those on TSA's 'watch list'. EVERYONE does not need to be screened, IMO.

[BellaBellucci]

The only folks who should be screened are those on TSA's 'watch list'. EVERYONE does not need to be screened, IMO.

Are you kidding? The watch list is a bigger joke than the scanners. Nobody knows who is on it, how they got there, or how they can get removed.

NOBODY needs to be screened that thoroughly. I'd rather take my chances in the event of a terror attack than submit to the Ameristapo. The bottom line is that terrorists don't kill people to victimize them, they do it to victimize everyone else by scaring them with a 'you could be next' mentality. That mentality gives rise to these types of tactics. Translation? The terrorists have already won.

I for one am more afraid of the federal government than any terrorist. Truth.

~BB~

[Iori]

...........

[BellaBellucci]

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...litano_do.html

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano unveiled the system at JFK recently and (surprise, surprise) did not volunteer herself for the demonstration.

Although, in her defense, she probably didn't want anyone to know that she has a penis.

~BB~

[giovanni_hotel]

Bella, you only say that because you don't probably know anyone who works for the Federal government. There are major security holes in U.S. commercial air flight, and to imply who cares if the occasional plane or two blows up every once in a while just so you can maintain your 'privacy' is not a rational response, IMO.

If you travel to Israel, expect to be thoroughly 'screened' and interrogated before being allowed to board or leave the country.
The problem with the current screening in the U.S. is that it doesn't need to be so anatomically precise in order to detect if someone is smuggling banned items.

For the most part, those watch lists are compiled by various intelligence agencies and reference high value individuals. Sure, sometimes a random passenger's name cross-references with a suspected enemy agent on the TSA 'watch list', but it's not a common occurrence.

The more planes that are blown up over American airspace by terrorists, the more draconian the response will be from the public and the government.

Better to take a little bitter pill now, than be forced to carry a bio-metric RFID I.D. card in the future that tracks you from the minute you walk out of your front door.

[JoePitt]

The bottom line is that terrorists don't kill people to victimize them, they do it to victimize everyone else by scaring them with a 'you could be next' mentality.

The terrorists have already won.

Those darn terrorists are on an incredible winning streak. I don't think they've lost a game since the Vietnam war. They must have won about 20 times since then.

Also, I think I would much rather have a stranger look at my junk than dieing in a fireball @ 30000 feet. Embarrassment ends, death does not.

[BellaBellucci]

and to imply who cares if the occasional plane or two blows up every once in a while just so you can maintain your 'privacy' is not a rational response, IMO.

Thanks Dubya. I didn't imply anything. I outright said it. I'm sorry, but that line of thinking (and the subsequent 'irrational' response intended to discredit not just the idea but the person who has it) is just a talking point. Have any planes been hijacked in the U.S. since 9/11? Did we have body scanners? Aren't cockpits locked now? Aren't there Sky Marshalls on flights? What was wrong with the old screening process considering these changes?

If you travel to Israel, expect to be thoroughly 'screened' and interrogated before being allowed to board or leave the country. The problem with the current screening in the U.S. is that it doesn't need to be so anatomically precise in order to detect if someone is smuggling banned items.

Israel is that way because they're a lightning rod for terrorism. Ironically, our close ties with them are precisely what makes us a target as well, but don't get it twisted: we're but a secondary target.

And the problem with the scanners is not just privacy but health. Personally, I don't want to be exposed to radiation every time I fly. Hell, I don't even like X-Rays at the doctor's office, but like you said, it's the precision that's the issue on the privacy front. My question is: if they say you can opt out of the scanner, why do they have to check your genitals and why do they have to make a scene and threats of lawsuits if you choose that option? They never did that before. They only do it now because the machine justifies using humans as a proxy for the same level of scrutiny.

For the most part, those watch lists are compiled by various intelligence agencies and reference high value individuals. Sure, sometimes a random passenger's name cross-references with a suspected enemy agent on the TSA 'watch list', but it's not a common occurrence.

Not common, but unfairly enforced.

http://trueslant.com/allisonkilkenny...sa-watch-list/

The more planes that are blown up over American airspace by terrorists, the more draconian the response will be from the public and the government.

Better to take a little bitter pill now, than be forced to carry a bio-metric RFID I.D. card in the future that tracks you from the minute you walk out of your front door.

When was the last plane blown up over American airspace? Oh, that's right - almost TEN YEARS AGO! That means that the screening process implemented after 9/11 served its purpose well. There's no safety justification for this un-called-for and seemingly random increase in security.

Oh, and the RFID? It's already in your passport, so yeah. They tried to put it in new licenses but most of the states rejected the requirements. I'm also hearing rumblings about CA licenses already being issued at the federal level. So much for state's rights.

~BB~

[BellaBellucci]

Those darn terrorists are on an incredible winning streak. I don't think they've lost a game since the Vietnam war. They must have won about 20 times since then.

Also, I think I would much rather have a stranger look at my junk than dieing in a fireball @ 30000 feet. Embarrassment ends, death does not.

Ever hear of the law of averages?

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dai..._in_500000.php

Maybe I should buy you a rubber suit to protect you from those lightning attacks. They're hell bent on killing you because they hate your way of life.



~BB~

[Jericho]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Wasn't it one of you lot who said this?
Guess times change