TSA blowback; Angry ladies had enough

[Sylvain]

I'm sure it would cost significantly less money and be vastly more effective in convincing REAL terrorists (not 6 year old girls with Tennessee accents) not to try messing with our airlines if there were 1-4 well-armed and well-trained air marshals on every flight instead of horribly expensive machines and poorly trained/supervised TSA personnel at every airport in the US. Look at Israel's airport security methods. Look at Germany's...look at a whole list of countries... Ours is the most invasive, most expensive (by far) and still basically useless security out there.

I agree.I fly often in Europe where they have nothing like the TSA.
Yet you dont hear about any terrorists attacks on planes, the airports are just as safe.I feel just as safe when I travel in Europe, actually safer because I dont have to worry about the TSA and I am not treated like a terrorist.
The TSA did nothing good since it was created.
9/11 could still happen now since you can still have a bunch of deadly weapons on board, that are "TSA approved".
So now we have less rights and still as much safety.How good is that?

 

[ravenwoodranch]

This is why I don't fly any more, makes me fell uneasy when going into an airport.

 

[Beau]

In case you didn't vote on the poll.28% of voters don't have children or are pedophiles who think it's okay for strangers to touch children.

 

[indykid]

Parts of this thread are Deja vu all over again!

And to those who think a no-fly day won't work because we would only be hurting the airlines and not the TSA, you don't think the airlines as a whole have more pull than one or two of us? You don't think the prospect of losing $2.5 Billion dollars won't cause the airlines to say something about the situation? And that is not taking into account lost revenue at the airport via vendors and parking fees.

When I was young, not too long ago when the government sorta trusted we the people, it was not uncommon to see a guy get on an airliner with a revolver strapped to his belt. Except back then the planes themselves were actually more dangerous than the passengers!

 

[Bunnykid68]

Let the thousands of armed citizens carry on the plane and problem solved.
If we did nothing since 9/11 there still would not be a problem, the people on the plane would do what they have done since 9/11, neutralize the perp.

 

[Expat]

^^This. Security did not fail on 9/11, regardless of what the statists in DC contend. It did exactly what it was supposed to and did it well. No-one got on with a gun, no-one got on with a bomb. Box cutters and pocket knives were legal to carry onboard a plane. As usual, when something bad went wrong, and a criminal came up with a new way of doing things, the state over reacted and now we're saddled with TSA and Homeland Security.

Plus the average citizen was woke up enough by what happened that if a couple guys jump up, pull out a couple box cutters and start yelling Allahu Akbar, those box cutters are going to be shoved up their anal cavities fairly quickly. Look at the shoe bomber and underwear bombers. It was fellow passengers that noticed and proceeded to remedy the situation.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I would be in total agreement that the search would be "illegal" if they were doing it to people NOT trying to enter a private facility. Note on PC... for "stop and frisks" police only require reasonable "suspicion". This is less than Probable cause... I'm not saying TSA has that, just clarifying what is required for a stop and frisk by a police officer.

When you enter a federal building/courthouse/etc. and they have a check point you must proceed through, you do so or you do not get into the building. You have a choice not to enter.

Have you tried to enter a federal building that has an metal detector and xray check point and refused to either go through the detector or put your bag through the xray? These are both considered "searches" (though not as "intrusive" as a "pat down").

Now, I'm going to say, if your argument that these "searches" at federal buildings (because they are funded with "public monies") are illegal as well then I would concede that.

If someone does not want to submit to the xray at the airport checkpoint they can leave or choose a pat down option. Now if they chased after her and then tried to search her or her child after they refused and were in the process of leaving then, YES, I would say that was "illegal". Once the subject is no longer trying to enter the "secured area" then they are no longer subject to a "search" (either by machine or "pat down").

It is "fact" that people have used children or other "inconspicuous" means to attack. Vietnam was a good example of this when little kids were given hand grenades and told to go "Play baseball with the Americans".


Now, that bit about kids being used as weapons aside, if the Airport is owned by the feds or another "public" agency I would also agree that the searches were "illegal". However if the airports are owned by a private company then they have every right to require a search prior to entering their "secure areas", just like you could require a search of anyone entering your house or business. If they don't like it then they don't have to enter. Anyone refusing to submit to a search prior to entering your business or house and attempts to force their way in can be forcibly ejected or even arrested on a variety of charges. If they stand outside on your property and start screaming at you they can be arrested as well. How is this any different?

Again, if they lady refused to be xrayed or submit to a pat down, turned away and attempted to leave and the TSA pursued her and stopped her then I would agree with you. If she in fact did start screaming and yelling (causing a disturbance) then I can see why she was arrested (and backed by video and audio recordings because the TSA has been caught lying about that before).


Now I don't like how crazy it's gotten because personally I don't believe they are actually catching anyone who is a real threat. Because of this I fly as little as possible and will normally drive if I need to travel a long distance.

When I do not have that option then I must submit to the requirements.

You want change? Have people stop flying in such numbers so that it threatens to bankrupt them and maybe they will start changing their policies.

Two points: One: The privately owned airlines have taxpayer funded "security" in place, courtesy of the fedgov and our extorted money. So... if I start up a business and I want it to be safe, what do I have to do to get everyone else to pay for it? (That's a rhetorical question; if I want security in my business, I fully expect that I will pay for it and doing so will cut into my profit margin. Anything else is criminal theft.)

Two: You said that if someone does not want to be molested or irradiated, all they have to do is choose not to enter the secure area.... except that people refusing to do so have been threatened with $11,000 fines for avoiding the checkpoint once they're in line. So now, it's not an option anymore, it's a governmental mandate, and we've already had a report, anecdotal though it is, that without TSA in Europe, flights are still safe. I'm not sure what other security theater they have going on there, but what we're doing here is clearly both unnecessary and fruitless.

Also, to the person who mentioned shock bracelets, those were discussed once as a method of transporting prisoners in custody on airlines, but to my knowledge, they were dismissed as ineffective and unworkable. I can look up the article if you want, just ask.

Someone mentioned that if we want real security, we should put ~4 air marshals on every flight. Bull. If you want real security, make it so the BGs have no effing clue who is armed or where they are or what they're carrying. Implement a policy that if you attempt to do violence on a plane, you get tied up, sat in a seat, a towel put around your neck, and your throat cut from ear to ear. Toss a few bodies on the tarmac and put them on the CBS Evening News and the problem with terrorism will be at an end.

The problem is that there are no consequences. Fix that, and just as with small children, the misbehavior will rectify itself.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[femurphy77]

A nation wide "No Fly Day" would do the trick. The airlines are on the verge of bankruptcy every day and this would send a message.

Break the industry and the regulations don't mean squat.

Yeah, yeah. Play nice. Go along to get along.

Well **** that !

Ah weedhopper but you forget one thing, "The airlines are too big to fail, How about if we sign the check Mr. (Delta, United, Continental, USAir, Etc.) and you just fill in the amount!"

It's happened before, why wouln't it happen again? Especially with Mr. redistribution of wealth at the helm!

 

[Duncan]

So I don't get banned , censored , blacklisted or a call from the local FBI district office .
I am not advocating or prompting any one to do this ..nor I am saying that they should not . My advice , if I should be asked would be silence .
I will take notice and believe that the public is serious and had enough IF and WHEN some one walks right up to a TSA agent at the security check point in an airport and puts a shotgun blast right to the face and or then starts working over the others standing around with same procedure .
If I were seated on a jury , which will never happen . I would exercise my right as a juror to judge both the law and the facts and with great probability find in favor of the defendant .
Thanks
Duncan

 

[gunowner930]

Parts of this thread are Deja vu all over again!

And to those who think a no-fly day won't work because we would only be hurting the airlines and not the TSA, you don't think the airlines as a whole have more pull than one or two of us? You don't think the prospect of losing $2.5 Billion dollars won't cause the airlines to say something about the situation? And that is not taking into account lost revenue at the airport via vendors and parking fees.

When I was young, not too long ago when the government sorta trusted we the people, it was not uncommon to see a guy get on an airliner with a revolver strapped to his belt. Except back then the planes themselves were actually more dangerous than the passengers!

I don't think a no-fly day will work because there won't be enough people that refuse to fly to make a significant impact. If enough people were committed it would work wonders though.

 

[flagtag]

The plain truth is, if the whole point of the TSA searching people and running people through all these checks is to keep us safe from "terrorists" (whatever that is these days) the fact is that, YES they should be able to pat down kids or anyone that wants to get on the plane.

PERIOD.

It is utterly ridiculous to believe that a "terrorist" would NOT use a child or an old person or whoever they could to smuggle an explosive or other weapon onto the plane.


Now I didn't say the TSA was effective or even useful. In fact I would think the planes would be much safer when back in the "old days" you could carry pocket knives onto planes. If I was a "terrorist" I would be much more worried about trying to hijack a plane with a box cutter if I knew there was a good chance I would run into armed resistance (bladed weapons in this case).

Much like that scene from Crocodile Dundee... "That's NOT a knife... now THIS, this is a knife!".

Or they pull out their pocket knife to "take over the plane" and half a dozen people whip out their kershaws, gerbers, benchmades, Columbia Knife and Rivers (etc. etc. etc.).


Now on a side TSA note. I would be a bit more concerned about their attempts to research that "shock device" that is supposed to disable anyone on the plane with an electrical shock. You would wear it as a collar or wrist band of some sort. If you got "out of line" or in the case of a "terrorist attack" the airplane personnel could push a button and everyone would be "disabled" ... providing of course that the terrorist has one on, or has not disabled the one they put on him, or doesn't get his hands on the "button" himself. If so then of course it just might make his "job" a lot easier.

While tragic, I for one would find it incredibly amusing.

But, turn about is fair play. "My turn"!

 

[thebishopp]

Responses in red. So I think we agree that the invasive searches are a charade, just a little disagreement on legality.

Yes I believe at the core we are in agreement. The searches are a charade. It's like sensormatics at shopping centers. The one's at the doors that beep if the little "don't steal me tag" hasn't been deactivated. They are meant only to stop the "casual" thief by making it look like there is some type of "security" but really do nothing to stop the serious ones.

It's there little "illusion" of security.

As to the question what right the feds have to put their goons there... the locality can hire their own private security. They do not have to have TSA agents.

"Rep. John Mica has reminded 150 Airports that they have the right according to a 2001 law he helped write to opt out of TSA screeners at security checkpoints. They can all go private and establish sane security procedures. NONE OF THE AIRPORTS HAVE TO OBSERVE THE NUDIE SECURITY MACHINES NOR ALLOW GROPING AT ALL. Rep. Mica describes a TSA that is dangerously ineffective and uses what he calls ‘security theatre’ to get stuff done."

TSA has been notorious for violations. They are an agency plagued with at the very least, poor training.

 

[thebishopp]

Two points: One: The privately owned airlines have taxpayer funded "security" in place, courtesy of the fedgov and our extorted money. So... if I start up a business and I want it to be safe, what do I have to do to get everyone else to pay for it? (That's a rhetorical question; if I want security in my business, I fully expect that I will pay for it and doing so will cut into my profit margin. Anything else is criminal theft.)

Two: You said that if someone does not want to be molested or irradiated, all they have to do is choose not to enter the secure area.... except that people refusing to do so have been threatened with $11,000 fines for avoiding the checkpoint once they're in line. So now, it's not an option anymore, it's a governmental mandate, and we've already had a report, anecdotal though it is, that without TSA in Europe, flights are still safe. I'm not sure what other security theater they have going on there, but what we're doing here is clearly both unnecessary and fruitless.

Also, to the person who mentioned shock bracelets, those were discussed once as a method of transporting prisoners in custody on airlines, but to my knowledge, they were dismissed as ineffective and unworkable. I can look up the article if you want, just ask.

Someone mentioned that if we want real security, we should put ~4 air marshals on every flight. Bull. If you want real security, make it so the BGs have no effing clue who is armed or where they are or what they're carrying. Implement a policy that if you attempt to do violence on a plane, you get tied up, sat in a seat, a towel put around your neck, and your throat cut from ear to ear. Toss a few bodies on the tarmac and put them on the CBS Evening News and the problem with terrorism will be at an end.

The problem is that there are no consequences. Fix that, and just as with small children, the misbehavior will rectify itself.

Blessings,
Bill

The article regarding shock bracelets is here:

Stunning Innovations from the TSA | Scragged

Couple other places too. The links to the letter written by Mr. Ruwaldt are no longer working, for some reason.

If the article is true, then there were interested in using the "bracelets" for regular passengers as well.

Again the TSA is known for their violations and unprofessional behavior (note that there are may TSA agents who do their best to do their job professionally, this is not aimed at them). It is not surprising that they are threatening people with fines for leaving the checkpoint.

Now as far as the public footing the bill... yes I agree with you. That is ridiculous and the fact is that the airports are NOT required to use TSA. There should not be a "TSA"... there shouldn't be quite a few 3 letter (or even 4) agencies.

 

[Duncan]

Wish I had this kind of power over women ....

Woman Who Groped TSA Agent's Breast Let Out of Jail

Woman Gropes TSA Agent's Breast at Security Checkpoint

 

[flagtag]

The woman who "turned the tables" on the TSA is being charged with "sexual assult". But, the TSA agents are exempt from the same charge?

Double standard.

 

[RockofStrength]

The woman who "turned the tables" on the TSA is being charged with "sexual assult". But, the TSA agents are exempt from the same charge?

Double standard.

she might even need to be registered as a sex offender. I believe someone said that this was the new color for hypocrisy?

 

[flagtag]

she might even need to be registered as a sex offender. I believe someone said that this was the new color for hypocrisy?

It's pretty hard to read.

Yeah, SHE gets charged with a sex crime but the perverts that grab breasts and crotch (of children as well as adults) are given a pass just because they are TSA.
I would like to be on her jury. I would DEFINATELY vote "Not Guilty"!