Someone needs to sue the TSA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

At first I had no problem with the new scanners and the groping, but then I read this excellent article by Krauthammer and I changed my mind...it's true, we'll bend over backwards to make ridiculous searches of children and grandmothers all so we don't have to do the obvious...profile.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16650845

---

i think i said that in page one didnt i

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lisaparadise

i think i said that in page one didnt i

---

Profiling would fail. Believe me. Terrorists will recruit other races.
The main mistake you're making is to think you are fighting a certain people. We aren't. We are fighting an idea and ideas have no race.

This white boy is Alqaeda now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by african1

Profiling would fail. Believe me. Terrorists will recruit other races.
The main mistake you're making is to think you are fighting a certain people. We aren't. We are fighting an idea and ideas have no race.

This white boy is Alqaeda now

---

well i believe in profiling period if its makes me racist then so be it i think every plane coming from an arab country should be as well as colombia mexico venezuala and so on

When they speak of profiling...they aren't talking about racial profiling...with profiling, it doesn't matter what race they recruit...they'll still fit the profile.

Business Travel Coalition chairman: *

Quote:

---

"The deployment of full-body scanners without a formal public comment process and sufficient medical and scientific vetting is one of the worst TSA abuses of authority since its creation," stated BTC Chairman Kevin Mitchell. "The overly aggressive pat-downs represent citizen-mistreatment in the extreme, especially if used as 'punishment' when passengers opt out of full-body scans," he added.

---

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton:

Quote:

---

Asked if she would submit to a pat-down, Clinton replied: "Not if I could avoid it, no. I mean, who would?... I understand how difficult it is, and how offensive it must be for the people who are going through it," Clinton added. "We have to be constantly asking ourselves, 'How do we calculate the risk?' And sometimes we don't calculate it correctly," she said.

---

* The BTC also warned against protests on Nov-24, but whatever.

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/holiday...ry?id=12204725

anyone participating on Opt-out Day tomorrow? wear a kilt, the proper way :dancing:

Can't wait until the TSA eliminates the scanners, misses a nutjob with 12 ounces of C4 crammed up his ass which he then proceeds to detonate in the bathroom.
The term 'intrusive' is all relative.

Whether folks want to believe it or not, there are a couple thousand religious zealots who LIVE to figure out devious ways to make Americans burn.

TSA needs a non-anatomically correct scanner, simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Can't wait until the TSA eliminates the scanners, misses a nutjob with 12 ounces of C4 crammed up his ass which he then proceeds to detonate in the bathroom.

---

The body scanners being deployed by TSA can't see beneath the skin, so currently, there is no screening procedure in place that will stop a nutjob with 12 ounces of C4 crammed up his ass from blowing up a plane.

To repeat, the passenger and cargo screening technology currently employed by TSA cannot stop a motivated individual from smuggling contraband onto an aircraft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Whether folks want to believe it or not, there are a couple thousand religious zealots who LIVE to figure out devious ways to make Americans burn.

---

There are 62 million registered motor vehicles in the United States, any one of which could kill you. In 2001, religious zealots killed 2,740 Americans. In the same year, 42,116 people were killed by traffic fatalities in the U.S., equal to a 9/11 every three weeks.

For me, I totally believe and accept that there are many deeply misguided individuals in the world who yearn to kill American citizens on principle. However, the chances that I'm actually going to cross paths with one of those individuals is so remote that I don't even waste time thinking about it. I'm about 10 times more likely to drown, and I don't think about that either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Can't wait until the TSA eliminates the scanners, misses a nutjob with 12 ounces of C4 crammed up his ass which he then proceeds to detonate in the bathroom.
The term 'intrusive' is all relative.

---

I can't wait until an attacker with internal explosives walks right through these scanners, which won't catch them at all, and detonates them on a plane. An excellent case study that the time, expense, intrusion, privacy violation, and radiation is all a big fraud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thombergeron

The body scanners being deployed by TSA can't see beneath the skin, so currently, there is no screening procedure in place that will stop a nutjob with 12 ounces of C4 crammed up his ass from blowing up a plane.

To repeat, the passenger and cargo screening technology currently employed by TSA cannot stop a motivated individual from smuggling contraband onto an aircraft.



There are 62 million registered motor vehicles in the United States, any one of which could kill you. In 2001, religious zealots killed 2,740 Americans. In the same year, 42,116 people were killed by traffic fatalities in the U.S., equal to a 9/11 every three weeks.

For me, I totally believe and accept that there are many deeply misguided individuals in the world who yearn to kill American citizens on principle. However, the chances that I'm actually going to cross paths with one of those individuals is so remote that I don't even waste time thinking about it. I'm about 10 times more likely to drown, and I don't think about that either.

---

Except no sane politician can make this argument to the American people, that the 'odds' are against them being blown up on an airline flight, so people there's really nothing to worry about.

Even a 5 megaton nuclear device blown up in one American city won't wipe the United States off the face of the map, and would only kill a few hundred thousand citizens, a tiny fraction of the total 300+ million population, so would you then make the argument that statistically there's nothing to be concerned about after the fact??

Arguing statistical probabilities when discussing potential terrorist attacks doesn't really play well when you try to explain to the American people how you plan to keep them 'safe' from foreign enemies.