Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Flipperk on November 15, 2010, 04:40:53 PM

Title: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Flipperk on November 15, 2010, 04:40:53 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsroom/20101114/tr_yblog_newsroom/san-diego-man-balks-at-scan



John Tyner, who was scheduled to fly from San Diego's Lindbergh Field to South Dakota for a hunting trip on Saturday, drew the line when he was asked to submit to either a full-body scan or a very personal pat-down....


Tyner refused, opting instead for the traditional metal body scan and a pat-down. When he was told that the TSA agent would have to conduct a kind of "groin check." Tyner balked, saying, "You touch my junk and I'm going to have you arrested."



a supervisor told Tyner that he wouldn't be allowed to travel unless he submitted to the check. Tyner opted to leave instead, getting a full refund for the ticket, but not before he was told that if he left the secured area he would be "subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine."


Tyner left anyway.





Yes!!  :aok
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Nefarious on November 15, 2010, 05:07:11 PM
With enough resistance they will be forced to act.  :aok
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: CHAPPY on November 15, 2010, 05:17:59 PM
I thought the young attractive women are the only ones that have to got thru the scanners. :headscratch:
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: shiv on November 15, 2010, 05:23:05 PM
Someone sees you with no clothes on?  Big deal.  I saw those planes hit the towers, and I had 3 friends die when they fell.  I'm all for personal liberty but if you're too shy to be body-scanned then plan on driving everywhere.  Safety is a bit more important.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Shuffler on November 15, 2010, 05:23:19 PM
So if they want to feel someone up they should have to pay them 10,000 if they have no contraband.

While I'm all for security... they have no idea how to do the basics that police did 60 years a go.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: CptTrips on November 15, 2010, 05:23:44 PM
"Tyner opted to leave instead, getting a full refund for the ticket, but not before he was told that if he left the secured area he would be "subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine."

I don't get that part.  Why can't I leave the secured area when ever I please?  If I'm willing to go back thru security check to get back in, ok.  

What if I just change my mind and decide I don't want to board?  What if I don't like the looks of the plane or the flight crew?  

I must be missing something.  

Wab




Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Tupac on November 15, 2010, 05:29:04 PM
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

- Benjamin Franklin



Honestly, if they wanna blow up a plane they will find a way to do it. They will get a job as a baggage handler, or just overcharge a laptop battery
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Nefarious on November 15, 2010, 05:37:27 PM
Safety is a bit more important.

You do know how X-Rays work right?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: shiv on November 15, 2010, 05:47:19 PM
You do know how X-Rays work right?


Not really...  But I wasn't talking about the health issues - this guy's problem seemed to be the privacy aspect.

I'm going to have to talk to my dentist too I guess.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Nefarious on November 15, 2010, 05:49:49 PM
I'm going to have to talk to my dentist too I guess.

That's why you wear a lead skirt over your genitals, and they leave the room.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: shiv on November 15, 2010, 05:55:48 PM
Lol.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Penguin on November 15, 2010, 06:22:53 PM
Dentist: IMA FIRIN MA LAZORRR!!!
Patitent: You firing your? *ZAP* OH $@17, MY BALLS!

-Penguin
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Dichotomy on November 15, 2010, 06:23:41 PM
hmmmm it'd be fun to start unbuttoning my pants while saying 'yall better stand back might get loose' :D

Now I appreciate the gentleman taking a stand but if some Airport Security Agent wants to scan me, so long as they got a barf bag handy, have at.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Tupac on November 15, 2010, 06:26:12 PM
hmmmm it'd be fun to start unbuttoning my pants while saying 'yall better stand back might get loose' :D

Im going to do this next time I fly commercial, its genius!
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Motherland on November 15, 2010, 06:28:01 PM
Never really understood the big deal about body scanners.
I mean, wiretapping, other stuff, sure, but air port security never really bugged me.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Babalonian on November 15, 2010, 06:28:47 PM
The lead skirt is to prevent inadvertent sterilization or over-raidiation to delicate internal organs via X-ray, primarily this would be your liver (sensistive to radiation), digestive tract (the good bacteria you need in it to properly digest), and in your case - your boys (for women, the ovaries).  The most important thing though is the technician/doctor needs to leave the room and/or get behind some heavy-duty radiation shielding, as repeated and long-term exposure to their bodies (working around it all day, every day) would be most hazardous and make them extremely sick from radiation poisoning.  Since most radiology departments have each X-ray room completely and independently shielded to prevent the radiation from interfeering with any other testing going on outside the imediate room (or to expose anyone except the intended individual), the safest place to be to avoid any radiation at all is to simply exit the room and close the door.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Delirium on November 15, 2010, 09:14:35 PM
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

- Benjamin Franklin



Honestly, if they wanna blow up a plane they will find a way to do it. They will get a job as a baggage handler, or just overcharge a laptop battery

Sadly, I agree with you completely.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: MORAY37 on November 15, 2010, 11:23:47 PM
Someone sees you with no clothes on?  Big deal.  I saw those planes hit the towers, and I had 3 friends die when they fell.  I'm all for personal liberty but if you're too shy to be body-scanned then plan on driving everywhere.  Safety is a bit more important.

The problem with these scans is that they are all show for the average joe american.  He sees these big wham bang machines, and says, "Well I saw the towers fall, and damn if they don't have this new technology, I feel safe!". He waits in the security line for the requisite hour fifteen, and goes to the terminal.  Meanwhile, the freight that the airlines carry arrives 15 minutes before departure, and is barely looked at.  It's all for show.  

Secondly, they are being seriously misused by the TSA agents themselves.  There are going to be serious lawsuits

Quote
As we reported yesterday, claims that the body scanners did not provide details of genitals were DISPROVEN after a London Guardian journalist who was present at a trial for the machines earlier this week reported that the devices produce an image which make “genitals eerily visible.” Indeed, as was admitted when the scanners were first being rolled out over a year ago, they don’t function properly if areas of the body are blurred out. A report from October 2008, when the naked body scanners were first being introduced at Melbourne Airport in Australia, detailed how the X-ray backscatter devices don’t work properly unless the genitals of people going through them are visible.

Quote
Rep. Jason Chaffetz said the body scanners give an explicit view of a naked person. "It is a whole-body image, and they can spin it 360 degrees. And they can zoom in and see something as small as a nickel or dime," he said. "But they can't spot something hidden in a body cavity. A good old-fashioned sniffing dog is more effective."

A quick google will show what level of detail is available to the Xray backscatter images...and it's MUCH better than the pictures you see on the news.  There will be some staff somewhere that starts saving these pictures and has their "collection" found out at some point.

  Add to that the millimeter wavelengths can really harm your DNA and mess with replication.....

I am seriously at odds with this, and the application of this technology in this way.  
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: oneway on November 15, 2010, 11:45:03 PM
If your not pissed off you are not paying attention...
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Jayhawk on November 15, 2010, 11:51:55 PM
(http://www.rodale.com/files/images/security_check.jpg)
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Perrine on November 16, 2010, 12:07:18 AM
How will they handle Transsexual flyers that need to get patted down?
...especially if they havn't had their legal gender changed yet
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Jayhawk on November 16, 2010, 12:17:04 AM
How will they handle Transsexual flyers that need to get patted down?
...especially if they havn't had their legal gender changed yet

What does this matter?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: guncrasher on November 16, 2010, 03:11:09 AM
call me a cynic, but most of the money we spend on homeland security has nothing to do with making us safe, most of it is wasted or given to really good friends on some bs contracts.

semp
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Plawranc on November 16, 2010, 04:30:04 AM
call me a cynic, but most of the money we spend on homeland security has nothing to do with making us safe, most of it is wasted or given to really good friends on some bs contracts.

semp

Since when do tax dollars in any country go to the things the country needs?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Vudak on November 16, 2010, 09:31:20 AM
It's threads like this that make me wish the O'Club was a hidden, opt-in forum that you had to request access to.  I used to learn a lot here.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Raptor on November 16, 2010, 09:42:18 AM
Someone sees you with no clothes on?  Big deal.  I saw those planes hit the towers, and I had 3 friends die when they fell.  I'm all for personal liberty but if you're too shy to be body-scanned then plan on driving everywhere.  Safety is a bit more important.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin, 'Pennsylvania Assembly: November 11, 1755.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: shiv on November 16, 2010, 11:59:09 AM
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin, 'Pennsylvania Assembly: November 11, 1755.

Health issues aside (thanks Nefarious!) I don't see how being body scanned is an infringement of "essential liberty" when the issue is commercial aviation safety.  You can argue about the effectiveness of body-scanning perhaps, but even if it only serves a deterrent to the amateur terrorist then it's done its job. 

The health aspect is another matter, and as proved above quite beyond my scope.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Serenity on November 16, 2010, 12:23:17 PM
I'm not too pleased about this body scan, just because I'm not comfortable with getting a bunch of X-rays fired at my entire body. I've been through some of the most personal physicals you can get without calling it sexual harassment for the military. I'm not shy. I just don't want my junk fried.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 16, 2010, 01:30:21 PM
OK so everyone that has an issue with the potential health aspect of these machines let me ask you a question or two.......


do you smoke? do you reside in proximity to anyone who does?

do you drive a car or are you exposed in any fashion to any petroleum by product?

do any of you ever go outside during the daytime and leave any skin exposed to the sun for more than just a few seconds?

do any of you use ANY man made products of any kind?

do any of you breathe the air without filtering it first?

do any of you................

well you get the idea. just being alive is the slow process of dieing and i seriously doubt these machines are going to accelerate your demise. but if they do them let me be the first to say "I  :salute your sacrifice made on behalf of the safety of the rest of us"

and to those who would quote those that lived hundreds of years ago.......well they didn't have underwear an shoe bombers to live with did they? the times change with technology and what was once a given truth is no longer completely true in today's world. the constitution was written in a vague and abstract manner so that it may be allowed to change in meaning with the change in time and circumstance. don't take every quote and speech given by our predecessors to be completely accurate and applicable in today's world.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Vulcan on November 16, 2010, 01:30:22 PM
Be fun to have a browse of some adult magazines and get something 'going' before you got scanned  :devil
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Serenity on November 16, 2010, 01:42:53 PM
OK so everyone that has an issue with the potential health aspect of these machines let me ask you a question or two.......


do you smoke? do you reside in proximity to anyone who does?

do you drive a car or are you exposed in any fashion to any petroleum by product?

do any of you ever go outside during the daytime and leave any skin exposed to the sun for more than just a few seconds?

do any of you use ANY man made products of any kind?

do any of you breathe the air without filtering it first?

do any of you................

well you get the idea. just being alive is the slow process of dieing and i seriously doubt these machines are going to accelerate your demise. but if they do them let me be the first to say "I  :salute your sacrifice made on behalf of the safety of the rest of us"

and to those who would quote those that lived hundreds of years ago.......well they didn't have underwear an shoe bombers to live with did they? the times change with technology and what was once a given truth is no longer completely true in today's world. the constitution was written in a vague and abstract manner so that it may be allowed to change in meaning with the change in time and circumstance. don't take every quote and speech given by our predecessors to be completely accurate and applicable in today's world.

It might not significantly shorten your life-span, but it may adversely affect individual body parts, particularly things as sensitive as the genitals. Sorry, but I know I've got nothing to hide, I'll take the pat-down.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Nefarious on November 16, 2010, 01:51:15 PM
Sorry Flotsom, were not going to let it stand.

Sens. Doherty, Beach Introduce Resolution Calling on Congress to Reconsider TSA Screening Procedures

Senator Michael J. Doherty (R- Hunterdon, Warren) and Senator James Beach (D- Camden) announced they will present resolutions to the Senate and Assembly calling on the U.S. Congress to end TSA screening procedures requiring full body scans and pat downs at U.S. airports Their action comes in response to widespread concerns over privacy and radiation, as well as reports of inappropriate conduct by TSA agents during the screening process.

“The pursuit of security should not force Americans to surrender their civil liberties or basic human dignity at a TSA checkpoint,” said Doherty. “Subjecting law-abiding American citizens to naked body scans and full body pat downs is intolerable, humiliating, vulnerable to abuse, and is fast becoming a disincentive to travel. Particularly concerning to us is the fact that physical searches result in children being touched in private areas of the body. Terrorists hate America because of the freedoms upon which this great nation was built. By implementing these screening measures, the TSA has already handed a victory to those who seek to destroy our freedoms.”

http://bit.ly/c0n2FL
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Perrine on November 16, 2010, 02:12:41 PM
overwhelming support for full body scan in the US

(http://www.cbsnews.com/i/tim/2010/11/15/airport_pie_chart_370x278.gif)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 16, 2010, 02:21:38 PM
Sorry Flotsom, were not going to let it stand.

Sens. Doherty, Beach Introduce Resolution Calling on Congress to Reconsider TSA Screening Procedures

Senator Michael J. Doherty (R- Hunterdon, Warren) and Senator James Beach (D- Camden) announced they will present resolutions to the Senate and Assembly calling on the U.S. Congress to end TSA screening procedures requiring full body scans and pat downs at U.S. airports Their action comes in response to widespread concerns over privacy and radiation, as well as reports of inappropriate conduct by TSA agents during the screening process.

“The pursuit of security should not force Americans to surrender their civil liberties or basic human dignity at a TSA checkpoint,” said Doherty. “Subjecting law-abiding American citizens to naked body scans and full body pat downs is intolerable, humiliating, vulnerable to abuse, and is fast becoming a disincentive to travel. Particularly concerning to us is the fact that physical searches result in children being touched in private areas of the body. Terrorists hate America because of the freedoms upon which this great nation was built. By implementing these screening measures, the TSA has already handed a victory to those who seek to destroy our freedoms.”

http://bit.ly/c0n2FL

gee glory hunting politicians proposing bills with quotes from famous people of yestur year......yep that's a new one isn't it.

let me ask you this, where do you think those politicians will be the next time a commercial flight in America is destroyed by an act of terrorism?

screw politician and their self serving agenda's, this is purely about the safety of people who use airlines as a means of transportation and those in buildings that those airliners may be flown into.

these politicians are just jumping on the popularity band wagon, they are getting name recognition and free publicity on the unpopularity of the TSA security measures.

if you don't like the measures taken to ensure your safety on airliners then DRIVE. its a voluntary and momentary relinquishment of your modesty. i think even Ben would agree that its not to much to ask of any individual when balanced against the possible tragedies that could come from not employing the security measures available to us.

oh and by the way, you do understand that the TSA already can conduct strip searches if they feel their are grounds for it. they can actually detain you and transport you to a hospital for x-rays if they believe you are transporting contraband internally. just ask the thousands of drug mules currently incarcerated in the federal system about the legality of it. even the US Supreme court says that such actions are not only legal but they are vital in the protection of our citizens from contraband of all kinds.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Flipperk on November 16, 2010, 02:25:37 PM
gee glory hunting politicians proposing bills with quotes from famous people of yestur year......yep that's a new one isn't it.

let me ask you this, where do you think those politicians will be the next time a commercial flight in America is destroyed by an act of terrorism?

screw politician and their self serving agenda's, this is purely about the safety of people who use airlines as a means of transportation and those in buildings that those airliners may be flown into.

these politicians are just jumping on the popularity band wagon, they are getting name recognition and free publicity on the unpopularity of the TSA security measures.

if you don't like the measures taken to ensure your safety on airliners then DRIVE. its a voluntary and momentary relinquishment of your modesty. i think even Ben would agree that its not to much to ask of any individual when balanced against the possible tragedies that could come from not employing the security measures available to us.

oh and by the way, you do understand that the TSA already can conduct strip searches if they feel their are grounds for it. they can actually detain you and transport you to a hospital for x-rays if they believe you are transporting contraband internally. just ask the thousands of drug mules currently incarcerated in the federal system about the legality of it. even the US Supreme court says that such actions are not only legal but they are vital in the protection of our citizens from contraband of all kinds.


What about the safety that our forefathers put aside when they declared war with their own country? You think that by putting the colonies futures on the line along with all the residents that live in them to fight for personal liberties was a waste? Shame... We are sacrificing our own liberties, the same liberties that our forefathers made a sacrifice for....we are failing...


Hell the last few "scares" were ON THE PLANE!!!!!
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: dedalos on November 16, 2010, 02:29:36 PM
but if they do them let me be the first to say "I  :salute your sacrifice made on behalf of the safety of the rest of us"


That is the most obnoxious ignorant statement I v ever read.  Really?  Sacrifice for the survival of the stupid that think those machines actually keep them safe?

How many did the security measures stop?  The underwear guy and the shoe guy got in them planes no?  Only the old lady did not make it through lol.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Dichotomy on November 16, 2010, 02:49:03 PM
overwhelming support for full body scan in the US

(http://www.cbsnews.com/i/tim/2010/11/15/airport_pie_chart_370x278.gif)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html

The overwhelming populace is about as bright as small appliance bulb.  Present company excepted.  As always. 
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Shuffler on November 16, 2010, 03:00:55 PM
As I posted in the other thred... we should have the freedom to fly the "feel me up" flight or a "freedom" flight.


Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Shuffler on November 16, 2010, 03:01:42 PM
overwhelming support for full body scan in the US

(http://www.cbsnews.com/i/tim/2010/11/15/airport_pie_chart_370x278.gif)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022876-503544.html

Now just poll the folks who actually fly.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 16, 2010, 03:05:49 PM
That is the most obnoxious ignorant statement I v ever read.  Really?  Sacrifice for the survival of the stupid that think those machines actually keep them safe?

How many did the security measures stop?  The underwear guy and the shoe guy got in them planes no?  Only the old lady did not make it through lol.

Ded they got on the plane because the current machines being discussed herein werent in use. your argument supports mine by proving its use. they only had to walk through metal detectors to gain access to the plane. these machines go much further.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Jayhawk on November 16, 2010, 04:47:03 PM
As I posted in the other thred... we should have the freedom to fly the "feel me up" flight or a "freedom" flight.




Can I carry my gun on this "freedom" flight?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Penguin on November 16, 2010, 05:14:59 PM
Look, guys, neither of your points work-

All things in moderation

Dignity and human rights have value, I refuse to be degraded every single time I fly.  It is absurd to make these measures permanant.  It is absurd to put such humiliating steps into place, many of them only make us feel safe.  At a certain point we must let go, and say Stuff Happens.

However, total laxation isn't right either, and as has been mentioned, the twin towers burning is a horrible sight.

-Penguin
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: mechanic on November 16, 2010, 06:10:24 PM
has anyone considered the possibility that rather than intending to make a heroic stand for the nation he just had a wrap of coke in his pants?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Viperius on November 16, 2010, 06:18:43 PM
1984

Brave new world

 :noid

and btw if you have enough money in your bankaccount you can bypass all security and don't have to deal with the TSA or their useless body scanners. These are simply there to scare you and me into submission.

And I nominate Bin Laden for the best hider of all time award, bet if his taxes weren't in order he would have been caught a long time ago  ;)

Oh and Shiv show me the plane that hit WTC Building 7  :bolt:
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: redman555 on November 16, 2010, 06:36:32 PM
NO MAN will EVER touch me there.....I would of rather walked across the country.


-BigBOBCH
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: mechanic on November 16, 2010, 06:43:48 PM
why, are you worried you are gay?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: guncrasher on November 16, 2010, 08:14:01 PM
I dont mind being touched sexually by a stranger in a public place. But nobody's putting their hands on my gf or daughter.  I would rather drive.  Which i do anyway.

Semp
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Delirium on November 16, 2010, 09:05:31 PM
the times change with technology and what was once a given truth is no longer completely true in today's world. the constitution was written in a vague and abstract manner so that it may be allowed to change in meaning with the change in time and circumstance. don't take every quote and speech given by our predecessors to be completely accurate and applicable in today's world.

I'm fairly certain the forefathers of this great country didn't intend for the populace to be seen naked before travel. Don't you consider it a complete lack of privacy? I can see it now from the forefathers perspective;

"I am sorry, but before you go from New York to Boston on the Post Road you must be visualized in a naked manner."

and

"I know you want to take the canal from Buffalo to Albany, but we have to make sure you aren't carrying too much gunpowder to possibly destroy the canal. Get naked or we will check every part of you with our hands."
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 16, 2010, 09:12:48 PM
I'm fairly certain the forefathers of this great country didn't intend for the populace to be seen naked before travel. Don't you consider it a complete lack of privacy? I can see it now from the forefathers perspective;

"I am sorry, but before you go from New York to Boston on the Post Road you must be visualized in a naked manner."

and

"I know you want to take the canal from Buffalo to Albany, but we have to make sure you aren't carrying too much gunpowder to possibly destroy the canal. Get naked or we will check every part of you with our hands."

Del i expect more from you. at least a better thought out responce

your argument is not even an argument. show me a measure of how much gun powder, in tens of pounds, it would take to blow a hole in the side of a ship (the only mass transit of the day) and sink it......now show me how much of todays many types of home made explosives, in ounces is fine, it would take to bring an airliner down. they are not even close in measure.

the constitution and the bill of rights is written in a vague and abstract manner so that it can be molded and modified to fit the changing times.

Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Delirium on November 16, 2010, 09:15:54 PM
show me a measure of how much gun powder, in tens of pounds, it would take to blow a hole in the side of a ship (the only mass transit of the day) and sink it

It was in jest, I thought that was fairly clear. 

Besides, they didn't use ships for the most part on the canal system, like the Erie. It was all donkey drawn skiffs during that time period.

edit: To tell the populace either to put up with the invasion of privacy or don't take that method of travel within our borders is against our ideals imho.

Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 16, 2010, 09:18:23 PM
It was in jest, I thought that was fairly clear. 

Besides, they didn't use ships for the most part on the canal system, like the Erie. It was all donkey drawn skiffs during that time period.



sorry if i was touchy, been a long argument. my appologies for missing your jest.

did they really use mule drawn skiffs back then? didnt know that. see you are as smart as i first believed.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Delirium on November 16, 2010, 09:25:58 PM
sorry if i was touchy, been a long argument. my appologies for missing your jest.

did they really use mule drawn skiffs back then? didnt know that. see you are as smart as i first believed.

They did... they used bigger boats but nothing was ever powered until much later. The biggest they got in the beginning was the size of a lake sized family boat drawn by horse teams.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: mechanic on November 16, 2010, 11:28:18 PM
I dont want to get into the political and legal debate at all but I do find the vendetta against body searches a little paranoid. Vast majority of people who conduct the searches do so professionaly. Any breach of conduct you might suspect would be taken very seriously. Most of them are constantly concerned about inudcing lawsuits anyhow. It is a tough job, the honest ones deserve respect.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Delirium on November 17, 2010, 08:28:17 AM
Deleted
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: dedalos on November 17, 2010, 09:04:48 AM
Now just poll the folks who actually fly.

 :aok exactly
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: CptTrips on November 17, 2010, 09:24:38 AM

I guess my big problem is I feel its ineffective.

A suffciently "motivated" terrorist could hide a fair amount of plastic explosive in a body cavity.

Then what will be the next airport security check?

"Moooooooon Riiiiverrrrr...la de da de daaaa...."  Fletch

Wab
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Tigger29 on November 17, 2010, 09:51:14 AM
NO MAN will EVER touch me there.....I would of rather walked across the country.
-BigBOBCH

Wow what a homophobic kind of thing to say.  No one is suggesting it is an act anyone would actually enjoy, but to make such a bold statement is ludicrous!  I'm going to assume that you only frequent female doctors then?  What difference does it really make if it's a male or female conducting these practices when they are done on a professional level?

You know, when I had a lump on my left testicle, I was HAPPY to let a man touch me 'there' (my doctor).  I was even happier to let a hot blonde woman doctor run an ultrasound on it!  But neither made me as happy as finding out it was nothing to worry about!

I was also more than HAPPY to let a man touch me 'there' when I found out that my prostate is normal.  His exact words were "If you think that YOU'RE uncomfortable, just imagine how I feel!"... then he added that I should be happy that he has small hands  :lol

But seriously.. I doubt any security guard/police/doctor ever actually 'gets off' to having to perform these kinds of searches/examinations.  It is simply a 'part of their job'.  Everybody's job has things that have to be done that no body enjoys doing...  You're simply trained to do it and move on.

Same goes with the XRAY images.  None of the 'founding fathers' ever suspected that technology would evolve to the point in which general means of transportation could be used as a weapon, or that it would be possible to see people naked without them actually stripping down.  You can question the effectiveness of this technology all day long but I personally have little worries about its use... as long as only fully trained individuals are allowed to use them, and that they are not allowed to save any images without hitting some kind of panic button which sets off an alarm.

Even so, it may be worrisome that some of these pictures leaked out but the real truth is that no one would ever be able to recognize you based on one of these images, and I firmly believe that as it is more widely used we'll actually see less of these pictures getting out.  Why?  Because no one will CARE!  So what.. your a scan of your WEEWEE got leaked out to the internet.. do you really think that your mother is going to recognize you based on one of those images?  What's the big deal?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: dedalos on November 17, 2010, 09:53:20 AM
I guess my big problem is I feel its ineffective.

A suffciently "motivated" terrorist could hide a fair amount of plastic explosive in a body cavity.

Then what will be the next airport security check?

"Moooooooon Riiiiverrrrr...la de da de daaaa...."  Fletch

Wab

Exactly!  The only reason for these searches or the "security" measures is so that high school drop outs can have a job.  I mean, seriously? Even metal detectors don;t work.  We have plastic guns and ceramic blades.  :lol

Better idea would be to have an armed under cover cop in the plane and tazers for every member of the crew.  But OMG!  They could be terrorist too  :O
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: jd on November 17, 2010, 10:28:19 AM
TSA has NEVER stopped anyone from doing anything, quite the opposite actually, their worthless bags of skin making a paycheck. Why cant "WE The People" figure this out without government involvment. We're the ones flying, all the risk is on US. The gov. just doesnt want to LOOK bad. Meanwhile govt. surplus has a great deal on finger nail clippers they have confiscated. :mad:
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Somerled on November 17, 2010, 10:35:13 AM
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/bag_check.png)
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: quig on November 17, 2010, 11:09:48 AM
I can't believe how many people would just up and toejam all over the US Constitution these days.

And I can't help but to think about how much better off this country would be without them.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Vudak on November 17, 2010, 11:47:58 AM

the constitution and the bill of rights is written in a vague and abstract manner so that it can be molded and modified to fit the changing times.


Sorry Flotsom, but you are completely wrong.  I suggest you research:

1. England's unwritten constitution that could be "molded and modified to fit the changing times;"

2. The serious problems this caused;

3. Why these problems compelled our founding fathers to write our Constitution down; and

4. Why they included specific instructions for how to amend the Constitution (via AMENDMENTS) to deal with "changing times."
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: 68ZooM on November 17, 2010, 12:01:26 PM
Vudak thanks for responding  :aok you saved me some typing
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Shuffler on November 17, 2010, 12:02:22 PM
Can I carry my gun on this "freedom" flight?

If your licensed to carry where you are and where you are going.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: 68ZooM on November 17, 2010, 12:04:39 PM
If your licensed to carry where you are and where you are going.

only way to do that is a Federal CWP  do they have those regular citizens and not just Law enforcement
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 17, 2010, 12:16:00 PM
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)

tell me anything stated in an exacting fashion that is set in stone within these documents. everything written such as "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," the fourth Amendment, does not say what an "unreasonable search is. instead it says it in a vague manner allowing for changes in time circumstances and opinions of the people to change. this is what i mean by vague, and every part of both the Constitution and The Bill of Rights is written in this fluid and modifiable manner. every part of it is made to be changed by prevailing opinions of interpretation.

this is also why we have a president style of court system. judges do not just read the law as written but also read the law in light of the prior rulings of other judicial bodies on that law. the actual interpretation and applicability of any and every law under the specific case circumstances is left to the trier of fact and the jury themselves.

this manner of government and law is designed to survive the test of time and the winds of change while still maintaining a relevant value to both its original intent and an ever changing world.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: dedalos on November 17, 2010, 12:20:00 PM
Just fill the planes with nude pictures.  That should stop any religious fanatics from even boarding the plane.

Ahhhh, the simple solutions.  Go ahead, ask me something else  :lol
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: 68ZooM on November 17, 2010, 12:43:27 PM
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)

tell me anything stated in an exacting fashion that is set in stone within these documents. everything written such as "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," the fourth Amendment, does not say what an "unreasonable search is. instead it says it in a vague manner allowing for changes in time circumstances and opinions of the people to change. this is what i mean by vague, and every part of both the Constitution and The Bill of Rights is written in this fluid and modifiable manner. every part of it is made to be changed by prevailing opinions of interpretation.

this is also why we have a president style of court system. judges do not just read the law as written but also read the law in light of the prior rulings of other judicial bodies on that law. the actual interpretation and applicability of any and every law under the specific case circumstances is left to the trier of fact and the jury themselves.

this manner of government and law is designed to survive the test of time and the winds of change while still maintaining a relevant value to both its original intent and an ever changing world.

OK under your logic, Gov, Cops anyone with a "official" title can search your person place or anything you own at anytime and your just fine with that, unreasonable search would be me walking into a public place and being told i have to be searched because i might be a bad guy, or driving down the road and being pulled over and me and my car ransacked because i looked suspicious whats next  Malls? sporting events? anyplace where more than a certain number of people congregate to keep us all safe?   wow what a Parinoid Nation we have become

Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Vudak on November 17, 2010, 12:48:03 PM
What was meant to be done, and what has been done are very different things.  If you ever put in an advanced study of our history, you'd probably walk away disgusted with what has happened to our Constitution.

At the very least, you would definitely dispute your quote: "every part of it is made to be changed by prevailing opinions of interpretation."

Just because a text book or teacher says so does not make it so.  Go read the primary sources.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Dichotomy on November 17, 2010, 12:51:27 PM
Zoom we're pretty much already there.  See 'implied consent' in Texas Traffic laws. 
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 17, 2010, 01:17:27 PM
What was meant to be done, and what has been done are very different things.  If you ever put in an advanced study of our history, you'd probably walk away disgusted with what has happened to our Constitution.

At the very least, you would definitely dispute your quote: "every part of it is made to be changed by prevailing opinions of interpretation."

Just because a text book or teacher says so does not make it so.  Go read the primary sources.

well Vudak i have actually read alot. and one thing that is prevelant throught all of the things i have read is that each state and their representatives had their own opinions and their own personalities that they were unwilling to allow to be stepped on. thus the documents of government were drafted in a fashion that allowed for individual interpretation of an inteligent person. this individual interpretation should, if all of the readers are intelligent arrive at close to the same conclussions.

OK under your logic, Gov, Cops anyone with a "official" title can search your person place or anything you own at anytime and your just fine with that, unreasonable search would be me walking into a public place and being told i have to be searched because i might be a bad guy, or driving down the road and being pulled over and me and my car ransacked because i looked suspicious whats next  Malls? sporting events? anyplace where more than a certain number of people congregate to keep us all safe?   wow what a Parinoid Nation we have become



why dont you spend a few days reading court papers and you will find at least one of every issue that you have named found to be both reasonable and unreasonable. they are dealt with on a case by case basis.

for one simple example walk into a "mall" and act like you are hiding something being sneaky or are up to no good....its called reasonable suspicion and it can and has been based upon the manner in which you are acting.

anyways, read, dont read. your choice. but please dont tell me what is or isnt when the proof to contradict you is plainly written in the documents you so readily turn to for support.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Somerled on November 17, 2010, 01:20:30 PM
And don't get me started on the interstate commerce clause!  :mad: :mad: :mad:
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 17, 2010, 01:26:05 PM
And don't get me started on the interstate commerce clause!  :mad: :mad: :mad:

the bane of every illegal dealer of any kind :) very fluid article considering its original intent was to ensure trade amongst the states as well as regulating the prices and growth practices of things such as corn and wheat ect.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Somerled on November 17, 2010, 01:34:24 PM
its the abuse of that clause that allows so much federal involvement in things that have nothing to do with trade.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Vudak on November 17, 2010, 01:36:34 PM
Flotsom, it's not even worth arguing with you.  You clearly don't get it.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: dedalos on November 17, 2010, 01:56:15 PM
 wow what a Parinoid Nation we have become



Looks like the bad guys scored 1  :(
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: 68ZooM on November 17, 2010, 01:59:22 PM
Flotsom, I'm over 50 i know my rights i also know how the court system's work, I've served on juries and been a victim of crimes and justice is not always correct nor is it rightly applied, for some they twist the meanings or wording around to suit there agenda's then let the courts decide , you gave an example of a person walking in a mall act like you are hiding something being sneaky or are up to no good, well then in that Security should approach the man and talk to him, and go from there, that's simple and far from what we are talking about, but should we scan everyone before they enter the mall or sporting event so we all can feel safer knowing theres no evil doers in there

were talking about everyone being scanned or pat down searched or the side affects as a condition for flying or even accessing the concourse, not just the people who look suspicious , its an invasion of ones privacy and unreasonable search, you'll never change how i feel and I'm sure i wont change yours so we'll agree on that :aok   so would you like to see them in all the places i described for the safety of the public
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Shuffler on November 17, 2010, 02:06:30 PM
only way to do that is a Federal CWP  do they have those regular citizens and not just Law enforcement

Mine is accepted by several states. Of course I don't fly much anymore.

...... and I have never carried on a plane. lol
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: 68ZooM on November 17, 2010, 02:11:31 PM
Looks like the bad guys scored 1  :(

heck not over me, chances of me slipping in the shower or driving my truck and being killed are far greater than by terrorist's, the biggest act of terrorism it's self is instilling the fear
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Somerled on November 17, 2010, 02:12:27 PM
heck not over me, chances of me slipping in the shower or driving my truck and being killed are far greater than by terrorist's, the biggest act of terrorism it's self is instilling the fear

Which, unfortunately, it seems that they accomplished. We are scared of our shadows now.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: mechanic on November 17, 2010, 02:14:38 PM
Just fill the planes with nude pictures.  That should stop any religious fanatics from even boarding the plane.


 :rofl

now this is pure genius


Ok my question. Where do babies come from?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: dedalos on November 17, 2010, 02:17:52 PM
:rofl

now this is pure genius


Ok my question. Where do babies come from?

The hospital?  :confused:
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: 68ZooM on November 17, 2010, 02:22:50 PM
The hospital?  :confused:

no no NO the Stork  Duh!!!
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 17, 2010, 02:25:41 PM
Flotsom, it's not even worth arguing with you.  You clearly don't get it.

what exactly don't i get? that you are attempting to force your interpretation of the constitution on me? that you wish to read it in a manner that i do not? that the constitution, as contradictory as this sounds, is written so fluidly that it supports both sides of this argument and at the same time there are US supreme court cases that support both our arguments?

all of this conflicting documentation and court cases proves that in the end, i am correct it is and was written to be fluid and changing with the times. thanks to people who pack explosives in their shoes and underwear, i would say that thetimes have changed.

oh and Vudak, i spent 2 to 4 hours a day (some days up to 10 or 12) for 4 years sitting daily reading and discussing with many many very smart and very crafty people, who's I.Q.'s ranged from average to genius, people who were trying to find ways to manipulate these documents, you now discuss. so believe me when i tell you i am very well read on the subject and have had many many hours of tedious debates on them. the one truth that was always prooven true in the end is that the documents are fluid and subject to the opinion of the reader based upon the circumstances of each case individually.

if i am wrong then i compel you to state here irrefutable proof that contradicts me. if you do and i cannot refute what you say then i guarantee three things; 1 that i will apologize to you for arguing an invalid point, 2 will rethink and reform my manner of thinking to present the correct version. 3 that life on the BBS will go on.  :D

understand, i am not instigating or belittling you or your beliefs, i just hold differing ones.

ZOOM i agree to disagree on only for the whats and hows they are using the constitution and to question if it is legal.

as far as what is truly right or wrong...well i agree with you 100%.

too far is too far from a personal perspective, but the interpretation of what is "too far" is within the sole reach and discretion of the government. the only way to change that is to change those that are making those decisions.

but to make a further  understanding between us, should someone pack a duffel bag full of nasty and walk into a mall and kill hundreds of people and they start putting these monitors there and i will not think it wrong, my mom works in a mall. her safety is far more important to me than anyone elses modesty.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Somerled on November 17, 2010, 02:29:52 PM
no no NO the Stork  Duh!!!

Ever notice that the mascot on the pickle jar is a stork? Thats not by accident.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Serenity on November 17, 2010, 03:06:08 PM
FLOTSOM, what it comes down to is this:

Body scanners search people. A dedicated terrorist will just bomb the bags. We are NEVER going to be able to completely eradicate the threat of terrorism. I understand taking certain measures to keep us safe, but there are lines where it becomes just a little bit ridiculous. This is that line.

Don't think I have anything to hide, I don't. It's not that I'm shy, like I said, I've had some pretty... 'personal' medical examinations. But when the time comes for physicals, I drop my pants like every other good recruit. Don't think it's about personal defiance or some dislike of authority. I've dedicated my life to the Military. I'm used to idiots telling me to do things that just don't make sense, and still having to say "Yes sir" and do it anyway. This is just excessive. It is unnecessary, and ineffective at truly securing our airways. What's more? It tells the terrorists to keep doing what they're doing because it is CLEARLY making us terrified, and making our lives more difficult.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Somerled on November 17, 2010, 03:14:19 PM
Security theater is worse than no security, because it gives us the illusion of safety when resources could be better used in other ways.

Prime example: In NYC, we randomly have police searches of people trying to get onto the subways.

except that you can refuse and walk away. A tango can easily just turn around and walk away to find another station that does not have the cops.

And the cops are wasting time and money on the illusion of search while they could be actually out arresting bad guys.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: jimson on November 17, 2010, 04:14:42 PM
Gotta be a better way.

Can't they program a computer to scan images for anomalies and sound an alert for closer inspection so no one would ever see the images?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: dedalos on November 17, 2010, 04:23:14 PM
no no NO the Stork  Duh!!!

Always wondered how they got to the hospital.  ty
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Blooz on November 17, 2010, 05:22:10 PM
what exactly don't i get?
<snip>
the interpretation of what is "too far" is within the sole reach and discretion of the government. <snip>

Wow. In this country (The United States of America, just in case you're from out of town) I thought the people were in charge.

You know, before the United States became the United States the English government searched English homes looking for weapons and terrorists. The people had no legal protection from this.

Today the American government searches Americans looking for weapons and terrorists. Hello US Constitution.

You do realize that the TSA is a federal government agency?
You do realize you need to be suspected of committing a crime before being searched?
You do realize that the federal government needs a court issued warrant to search you and your property?

Fourth Amendment text:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There seems to be quite a bit you don't get.


Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 17, 2010, 07:24:01 PM
ok everybody who wants to be a smart man???? then answer this simple question..

where in the constitution does it state that any person has the RIGHT TO PRIVACY??????? which is part of the basis of the original argument here.

your arguments are additionally flawed because they are based upon the rights you are considered to have at/in your home, mine is based upon you  voluntarily entering into a place that is controlled, regulated and protected by the government. a place that by entering you are conceding to being searched at any time with or without cause. do any of you bother to read the signs at the front doors. try entering a military base and telling the guard at the gate that you have a "right to privacy" and no he cannot search your car, try it at a court house or any other federal building. these places have the same signs.

when you enter the property, any property under the direct control of the government normally, but not always, you will find the place has posted upon or near the entrance in conspicuous view, a sign that tells you this fact. so if you enter of your own free will you have given your consent by your actions period. thus you have waved your right(s). these signs are further posted again and again at each step in the process of moving through the airport. so tell me, at which point of reading these signs over and over again do you start to fail to understand what they say? or do you start to believe they don't mean you?

any right may be voluntarily waved, like for instance the right not to be forced to incriminate yourself, upon your acquiescence by act or omission, providing it may be reasonably believed that you were made aware of such forfeiture of said right(s). signs posted in a conspicuous manner in the eyes of the courts constitutes such reasonable belief that you have this required knowledge.

see i live in the real world and i actually read what is there, so unlike most people i get alot of what is based upon reality, not what others think they get because its what they said on their favorite cop show on t.v..

if you wanna quote chapter and verse of articles and documents you obviously know little about then you better bring it with more than quotes that do not support your arguments.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Penguin on November 17, 2010, 07:27:49 PM
ok everybody who wants to be a smart man???? then answer this simple question..

where in the constitution does it state that any person has the RIGHT TO PRIVACY??????? which is part of the basis of the original argument here.

your arguments are additionally flawed because they are based upon the rights you are considered to have at/in your home, mine is based upon you  voluntarily entering into a place that is controlled, regulated and protected by the government. a place that by entering you are conceding to being searched at any time with or without cause. do any of you bother to read the signs at the front doors. try entering a military base and telling the guard at the gate that you have a "right to privacy" and no he cannot search your car, try it at a court house or any other federal building. these places have the same signs.

when you enter the property, any property under the direct control of the government normally, but not always, you will find the place has posted upon or near the entrance in conspicuous view, a sign that tells you this fact. so if you enter of your own free will you have given your consent by your actions period. thus you have waved your right(s). these signs are further posted again and again at each step in the process of moving through the airport. so tell me, at which point of reading these signs over and over again do you start to fail to understand what they say? or do you start to believe they don't mean you?

any right may be voluntarily waved, like for instance the right not to be forced to incriminate yourself, upon your acquiescence by act or omission, providing it may be reasonably believed that you were made aware of such forfeiture of said right(s). signs posted in a conspicuous manner in the eyes of the courts constitutes such reasonable belief that you have this required knowledge.

see i live in the real world and i actually read what is there, so unlike most people i get alot of what is based upon reality, not what others think they get because its what they said on their favorite cop show on t.v..

if you wanna quote chapter and verse of articles and documents you obviously know little about then you better bring it with more than quotes that do not support your arguments.

I can't really make an argument now, but this is one of the better put together ones I've seen for years.  Well held, FLOTSOM, well held.

 :salute
-Penguin
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: MORAY37 on November 17, 2010, 07:48:48 PM
The minimum requirements to now feel up or view naked, you, your wife and your kids.

Educational Background
FAR 108.31(a)(1) requires that screeners possess a high school diploma, a General Equivalency Diploma, or a combination of education and experience which the certificate holder has determined to have equipped the person to perform the duties of the position. This implies that the airline can decide that a screener does not have to successfully complete high school.

Criminal Background Checks
FAR 108.33(c)(5) does not require criminal records checks for every screener applicant, only for those applicants who have specific deficiencies in their employment history, if there are other deficiencies in the application, or if the air carrier finds out that the applicant may have been convicted of certain kinds of crimes. The required criminal records check is with the FBI, but the regulations do not say anything about records checks from other countries.

Criminal History
Surprisingly, a conviction for a crime, even a violent felony, does not disqualify someone from working as a screener. FAR 108.33(2) states that a criminal records check must not disclose that the applicant had been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity, in any jurisdiction, during the previous 10 years of a number of crimes such as aircraft piracy, interference with a flight crew or cabin crew member, assault with intent to murder, rape or aggravated sexual abuse, or armed robbery. This list of crimes include sedition, treason, extortion, or distribution of a controlled substance. This regulation implies that so long as the conviction were at least 10 years old, almost any convicted criminal could become a security screener.


Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Vulcan on November 17, 2010, 07:51:58 PM
LOL pedo's will be lining up for the job  :aok
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Penguin on November 17, 2010, 07:52:27 PM
That sucks some major balls...

-Penguin
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 17, 2010, 08:19:53 PM
The minimum requirements to now feel up or view naked, you, your wife and your kids.

Educational Background
FAR 108.31(a)(1) requires that screeners possess a high school diploma, a General Equivalency Diploma, or a combination of education and experience which the certificate holder has determined to have equipped the person to perform the duties of the position. This implies that the airline can decide that a screener does not have to successfully complete high school.

Criminal Background Checks
FAR 108.33(c)(5) does not require criminal records checks for every screener applicant, only for those applicants who have specific deficiencies in their employment history, if there are other deficiencies in the application, or if the air carrier finds out that the applicant may have been convicted of certain kinds of crimes. The required criminal records check is with the FBI, but the regulations do not say anything about records checks from other countries.

Criminal History
Surprisingly, a conviction for a crime, even a violent felony, does not disqualify someone from working as a screener. FAR 108.33(2) states that a criminal records check must not disclose that the applicant had been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity, in any jurisdiction, during the previous 10 years of a number of crimes such as aircraft piracy, interference with a flight crew or cabin crew member, assault with intent to murder, rape or aggravated sexual abuse, or armed robbery. This list of crimes include sedition, treason, extortion, or distribution of a controlled substance. This regulation implies that so long as the conviction were at least 10 years old, almost any convicted criminal could become a security screener.




tell me are the prior criminal record requirements (with the exception of specif schooling required to perform said job) any more stringent to be a doctor? how about a professional photographer? how about a cop? a marine? or any other military branch of service? how about any of your local lawyers politicians sherif ect ect ect. in most cases you will find they are not.

"
Here are the requirements for running for President:

"The United States Constitution provides that a candidate for the presidency must be a "natural-born" United States citizen. The candidate must also be at least 35 years old and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. No law or court decision has yet defined the exact meaning of natural-born. Authorities assume the term applies to citizens born in the United States and its territories. But they are not sure if it also includes children born to United States citizens in other countries. How Nominated: By a national political party convention" "

those are the only requirements that you must meet to become president of the US. nowhere does it stipulate that a person must be free of a criminal history. in the end the voters will decide, look at Bush. so your criminal history argument really doesnt hold up when it comes to job requirements does it?

now before you say well he wont be looking at the monitors or he wont be padding me down ect ect, keep in mind the power over you privacy he has.

because of your additional ignorant and derogatory attitude about school lets run with level of education. try this for facts.........

"The Constitution does not require the President to be a college graduate, or even a high school or kindergarten graduate. Nine American presidents never went to college, including such great presidents as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, (although Lincoln was accepted to the bar and practiced law, he was largely self-taught) and even the 20th century president who won the war against Japan, Harry S. Truman. The others are Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore and Grover Cleveland. In fact, the 17th president of the United States, Andrew Johnson, never went to school at all. His wife taught him to read and write."

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm so your argument about educational levels really doesnt hold up very well either does it?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: quig on November 17, 2010, 08:50:43 PM
So, FLOTSOM, you're arguing for this knowing that things like misconduct can and will happen, that kids 5-15 +/- will be nude on someone's monitor and that there is also a chance of them being put through physical searches? Not to mention peoples wives and girlfriends?

You can't really be serious.

And the last time I checked the only people the president gets to see naked are the interns.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 17, 2010, 09:10:59 PM
So, FLOTSOM, you're arguing for this knowing that things like misconduct can and will happen, that kids 5-15 +/- will be nude on someone's monitor and that there is also a chance of them being put through physical searches? Not to mention peoples wives and girlfriends?

You can't really be serious.

And the last time I checked the only people the president gets to see naked are the interns.

hahahahaha cute  :aok

my argument is three fold;

1 it is not a violation of any of your rights for them to do this, provided they show due dilligence in perfoming this in a professional manner.

2 to assume that because the job does not require college that must mean that the people doing it are of lowly stature is absurd. funny how many doctors after 6 years or more of schooling have been charged criminally and or been sued because of impropriety of one form or another. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35528101/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35528101/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/) just one example.

if the people are forced to act professional, by setting the example of stiff penalties for those who fail to do so, then the chances of being less than professional decrease. you are forgetting that all commercial airports fall under the auspices of the federal government, they require less proof and hand out much bigger sentences when one of their own step out of the lines. this will prove especially true when it involves children, nudity, photography of any kind, and a machine that is already so controversial

3 the safety of the many out weights the modesty of the few. (remember this is under the consideration that it is performed in a professional manner)

do i like it that this has become required? no. but as i said earlier, blame the scumbags that hide bombs in their underwear not the government for trying to prevent them from killing anyone.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Serenity on November 17, 2010, 09:19:17 PM
tell me are the prior criminal record requirements (with the exception of specif schooling required to perform said job) any more stringent to be a doctor? how about a professional photographer? how about a cop? a marine? or any other military branch of service?

Oh dear GOD yes. What did I go through to get in?

FBI background check.
Graduate high-school.
Submit personal references.
Have every inch of my body checked in a physical, to include sonograms, MRIs, and CT scans.
Submit written testimony of any discrepancy in my personal history to include any failed classes in highschool, and police involvement, etc.

You think you can walk into the military without graduating highschool and without a criminal background check? I couldn't even get an apartment without a background check!
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 17, 2010, 09:24:16 PM
Oh dear GOD yes. What did I go through to get in?

FBI background check.
Graduate high-school.
Submit personal references.
Have every inch of my body checked in a physical, to include sonograms, MRIs, and CT scans.
Submit written testimony of any discrepancy in my personal history to include any failed classes in highschool, and police involvement, etc.

You think you can walk into the military without graduating highschool and without a criminal background check? I couldn't even get an apartment without a background check!

well thats funny cause i have 2 friends with criminal records that are in the military. what was your MOS? im not saying the dont check, but its what will pass that matters.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: quig on November 17, 2010, 09:27:33 PM
@FLOTSOM -

Let's see. The 4th says:
Quote
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No matter where your persons is, this still applies. So 1 is out.

And for 2 you are saying that with stiff punishments in place people won't break the law anyhow? Look at the death penalty. Just doesn't work that way. And no matter what punishment someone gets for abusing this, it will be too late and the damage done, especially for children.

Lastly, this isn't about modesty. There is a limit to how far this kind of thing should go, and this is past that limit. The safety of the many should come in some other form. This won't work anyhow as others have said.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Serenity on November 17, 2010, 09:27:35 PM
well thats funny cause i have 2 friends with criminal records that are in the military. what was your MOS? im not saying the dont check, but its what will pass that matters.

Right now, I'm training to be an officer and going for aviation.

It IS possible to get in with a criminal record. The difference is, there are certain criminal charges that, well, the military deems are acceptable. But they are KNOWN by the military, and taken into account when assigning an MOS. The key here is that TSA doesn't even check necessarily.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 17, 2010, 09:33:24 PM
Right now, I'm training to be an officer and going for aviation.

It IS possible to get in with a criminal record. The difference is, there are certain criminal charges that, well, the military deems are acceptable. But they are KNOWN by the military, and taken into account when assigning an MOS. The key here is that TSA doesn't even check necessarily.

you are an officer and a pilot, first  :salute second those types of jobs imply much more responsibility than the average grunt who humps mud.

i could be wrong in this and if someone knows for certain feel free to correct me, but doesnt the fbi do the hiring or screening for the tsa?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: MORAY37 on November 17, 2010, 09:42:12 PM
tell me are the prior criminal record requirements (with the exception of specif schooling required to perform said job) any more stringent to be a doctor? how about a professional photographer? how about a cop? a marine? or any other military branch of service? how about any of your local lawyers politicians sherif ect ect ect. in most cases you will find they are not.

"
Here are the requirements for running for President:

"The United States Constitution provides that a candidate for the presidency must be a "natural-born" United States citizen. The candidate must also be at least 35 years old and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. No law or court decision has yet defined the exact meaning of natural-born. Authorities assume the term applies to citizens born in the United States and its territories. But they are not sure if it also includes children born to United States citizens in other countries. How Nominated: By a national political party convention" "

those are the only requirements that you must meet to become president of the US. nowhere does it stipulate that a person must be free of a criminal history. in the end the voters will decide, look at Bush. so your criminal history argument really doesnt hold up when it comes to job requirements does it?

now before you say well he wont be looking at the monitors or he wont be padding me down ect ect, keep in mind the power over you privacy he has.

because of your additional ignorant and derogatory attitude about school lets run with level of education. try this for facts.........

"The Constitution does not require the President to be a college graduate, or even a high school or kindergarten graduate. Nine American presidents never went to college, including such great presidents as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, (although Lincoln was accepted to the bar and practiced law, he was largely self-taught) and even the 20th century president who won the war against Japan, Harry S. Truman. The others are Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore and Grover Cleveland. In fact, the 17th president of the United States, Andrew Johnson, never went to school at all. His wife taught him to read and write."

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm so your argument about educational levels really doesnt hold up very well either does it?

Sir, you can't get an apartment without a background check.  But you can feel up your fellow american citizens in clear violation of stated 4th amendment rights without one.  

It is clear you cannot have a discussion without personally insulting the the other participant.  
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: warhed on November 17, 2010, 10:23:26 PM
you are an officer and a pilot, first  :salute second those types of jobs imply much more responsibility than the average grunt who humps mud.

i could be wrong in this and if someone knows for certain feel free to correct me, but doesnt the fbi do the hiring or screening for the tsa?

If it's anything like the process I'm going through for the Border Patrol, there is a central human resources department in Minnesota, background checks and investigations are performed by investigators contracted by the government.

My background investigations at the nuclear power plant for my reactor clearance (mandatory by the Government), were performed by 3rd party investigators who got much of their information from the FBI.

Many issues with government jobs aren't having a perfectly clean record, it's being honest when filling out your background paperwork. 

They would much rather have an individual who owns up to his past, than one who tries to hide it.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Vulcan on November 17, 2010, 10:26:11 PM
tbh all this is going to do is make osama be more creative.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Karnak on November 17, 2010, 11:05:26 PM
Remember, this is from the agency that arrested a pilot frustrated at having to take off his shoes who pointed out that if he wanted to destroy the aircraft he wouldn't need a bomb.

Funny Taiwanese take on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBL3ux1o0tM&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: dedalos on November 18, 2010, 08:43:48 AM
Floatsom, what kind of work do you do?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: dunnrite on November 18, 2010, 08:45:03 AM
(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6609/tsav.jpg)
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Blooz on November 18, 2010, 08:55:37 AM
Not surprisingly, after studying U.S. Code Title 49 and the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71) I can't find where the TSA gets it's authority to search passengers bodies in the manner they are doing.

They do have authority to search you physically if you cause the scanners (metal, body, baggage x-ray, dogs) to alarm or if you refuse to be checked by the machine scanners (this is the probable cause thing that law enforcement officers have to abide by). They are very explicit about scanning checked luggage and carry on luggage by both scanners, dogs and physical checks but not people, unless of course, you've given them a reason to suspect you. Which is perfectly legal.

Now, if you look at U. S. Code 18 under Sexual Abuse, you'll see how close the TSA is coming to commiting a crime at airport security checkpoints.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Wolfala on November 18, 2010, 09:31:36 AM
Right.  One could walk onto a domestic airliner with a couple of pounds of nitrocellulose explosive and a detonator today*** and not even be questioned about it, nor would ANY of the current electromechanical technologies employed by the TSA detect it. Psychological and ethnic profiling plus detailed questioning by a trained professional would easily catch someone attempting such, but NO NO, picking on minorities and foreigners is MUCH more devastating to them (sarcasm intended) than having some stranger gawk at my wifes naked body in a scanner or letting her be groped by some lecher of a TSA guard who flunked the psych exam required to work at McDonalds is to her. Not to mention the fact that the GAO's independent analysis shows that the radiation dose absorbed during a routine scan series is, at a minimum, 10X what the TSA and the manufacturer claims it is. If I'm in another country, well then I have to submit to whatever they see fit there, BUT NOT HERE. To turn your previous question to me on its ear,  which is more important, my and my family's personal right to privacy, right to be secure in our selves and possessions against unreasonable search an seizure, and our psychological peace of mind or that of some non-U.S. citizen who has no such rights under our constitution?  I say MINE.  
Non-metallic weapons+++ and "old-school" conventional explosives are totally undetectable by the machinery you espouse. A nut-job out to kill people on a plane is 99.99% detectable by psych profiling.
Now, let's talk bioweapons...want to kill a plane full of people without resorting to explosives?  I can name you at least 6 "bugs" that will do the trick.  Want to inoculate a plane-load of pax and then let them spread a disease to, say 1/4 million people before the CDC even realizes they have an epidemic on their hands? That can be accomplished also.  All we need is a seed stock and common labware from a high school or undergraduate microbiology lab.  The seed stock for MANY human pathogens is available commercially TO ANYBODY from the ATCC (http://www.atcc.org) for a nominal processing fee.  We can incorporate genomic (not plasmidic) multiple antibiotic resistance into bacteria in just a week or so. MRSA  can be obtained from any hospital.  Viruses are a bit trickier, but the CDC's repository in Atlanta is a smorgasbord of opportunity and their security is worse than a 7-11 at 3 am if you know what you need and who on the campus has routine access to it.  Biologicals are totally  undetectable to the screening systems. (but much more effective sprayed onto the salad bar at a rest stop restuarant)
Chemical weapons?  Same deal.  Carry on the precursor macromolecules and catalysts / enzymes, then "build" it in the lav.  Doesn't take much to get the job done.  Three pax with less than 3oz each collaborating, and again, not detectable at security.
How about good ol' physical destruction?  Anyone with an AMM can figure out how to disable an airliner's systems from the pax cabin.  It isn't rocket science.  Need privacy or at least a short head start?   Gain access to the crawl spaces through the access panels in the rear lav floor and ceiling in most Boeing equipment.  Can't stop that with a screening machine either.
The bad guys haven't TRIED to thwart our security measures, yet.  If they had tried, there would be a LOT more dead airplanes and people.  The only sociopaths to try it recently, those who made the headlines, were too stupid to pound sand in a desert and they were not terrorists (except by George "Alfred P. Newman" Bush's definition, in which anything that moves and "isn't with us" is a terrorist).  Not all mass murderers are terrorists. A smart terrorist would go though TSA security like a hot knife through butter.  But, they don't need to.  One, its easier to go around it by becoming an airport or airline employee.  Two, they've got us chasing our own shadows already, and that was the intent all along.  Taking credit for the subsequent idiots' attempts merely serves their purpose of keeping us at it.
Mark my words.  The next big terrorist event will have nothing to do with aviation other than their mode of travel to the U.S. in the first place.
***How?  By simply rinsing  80:20 cotton-polyester blend clothing fabric briefly in a 2:1 mixture of sulfuric acid and nitric acid, then rinsing it in water and drying it. Turns the cotton into a wearable explosive that would not set off ANY electronic sniffer. The detonator?  The striker wheel from a simple butane lighter or any other spark source.  BTW -- nitrocellulose = guncotton, the original smokeless gunpowder. Pack it into a confined space once you're on the plane and you've got a bomb, approx 6X more powerful than traditional gunpowder.  Need it in a different yet just as undetectable form?  Use 100% pure cotton instead. While wet, compress the processed cotton in a jar of petroleum ether.  Turns it into a plastic that can be machined and moulded into just about any shape - fake CDs, computer cases, cell phone protectors, shoe liners, you name it. (Goes by the common name collodion, and used to be the the base material in film stock.  Nowadays its also commercially available in both solid and liquid form - used by bioresearch labs for mixing custom DNA and protein analysis gels).  Collodion is so flammable that once ignited, it will even burn under water - it provides its own oxidant during decomposition.  In fact, pouring water onto a "dry" collodion fire will convert the fire into an explosion.  In large masses collodion is also a contact explosive, just bang it together and it goes BOOM.
+++ I flew 1/2 way around the world -- New Zealand to the US and then all the way across the US -- with a 8 inch ceramic-bladed Benchmade hunting knife in my carry-on two years ago.  Forgot I had put it in the shoulder strap pocket of my knapsack when we were hunting Tahr in the Southern Alps; didn't remember it until I was unpacking at home.  It went through x-ray screening no less than 4 times and was never flagged by the screeners.  So much for technology solving the problem.
RE quote: "Our way of life has survived.".
No, it has not.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Shuffler on November 18, 2010, 10:03:51 AM
Right.  One could walk onto a domestic airliner with a couple of pounds of nitrocellulose explosive and a detonator today*** and not even be questioned about it, nor would ANY of the current electromechanical technologies employed by the TSA detect it. Psychological and ethnic profiling plus detailed questioning by a trained professional would easily catch someone attempting such, but NO NO, picking on minorities and foreigners is MUCH more devastating to them (sarcasm intended) than having some stranger gawk at my wifes naked body in a scanner or letting her be groped by some lecher of a TSA guard who flunked the psych exam required to work at McDonalds is to her. Not to mention the fact that the GAO's independent analysis shows that the radiation dose absorbed during a routine scan series is, at a minimum, 10X what the TSA and the manufacturer claims it is. If I'm in another country, well then I have to submit to whatever they see fit there, BUT NOT HERE. To turn your previous question to me on its ear,  which is more important, my and my family's personal right to privacy, right to be secure in our selves and possessions against unreasonable search an seizure, and our psychological peace of mind or that of some non-U.S. citizen who has no such rights under our constitution?  I say MINE.  
Non-metallic weapons+++ and "old-school" conventional explosives are totally undetectable by the machinery you espouse. A nut-job out to kill people on a plane is 99.99% detectable by psych profiling.
Now, let's talk bioweapons...want to kill a plane full of people without resorting to explosives?  I can name you at least 6 "bugs" that will do the trick.  Want to inoculate a plane-load of pax and then let them spread a disease to, say 1/4 million people before the CDC even realizes they have an epidemic on their hands? That can be accomplished also.  All we need is a seed stock and common labware from a high school or undergraduate microbiology lab.  The seed stock for MANY human pathogens is available commercially TO ANYBODY from the ATCC (http://www.atcc.org) for a nominal processing fee.  We can incorporate genomic (not plasmidic) multiple antibiotic resistance into bacteria in just a week or so. MRSA  can be obtained from any hospital.  Viruses are a bit trickier, but the CDC's repository in Atlanta is a smorgasbord of opportunity and their security is worse than a 7-11 at 3 am if you know what you need and who on the campus has routine access to it.  Biologicals are totally  undetectable to the screening systems. (but much more effective sprayed onto the salad bar at a rest stop restuarant)
Chemical weapons?  Same deal.  Carry on the precursor macromolecules and catalysts / enzymes, then "build" it in the lav.  Doesn't take much to get the job done.  Three pax with less than 3oz each collaborating, and again, not detectable at security.
How about good ol' physical destruction?  Anyone with an AMM can figure out how to disable an airliner's systems from the pax cabin.  It isn't rocket science.  Need privacy or at least a short head start?   Gain access to the crawl spaces through the access panels in the rear lav floor and ceiling in most Boeing equipment.  Can't stop that with a screening machine either.
The bad guys haven't TRIED to thwart our security measures, yet.  If they had tried, there would be a LOT more dead airplanes and people.  The only sociopaths to try it recently, those who made the headlines, were too stupid to pound sand in a desert and they were not terrorists (except by George "Alfred P. Newman" Bush's definition, in which anything that moves and "isn't with us" is a terrorist).  Not all mass murderers are terrorists. A smart terrorist would go though TSA security like a hot knife through butter.  But, they don't need to.  One, its easier to go around it by becoming an airport or airline employee.  Two, they've got us chasing our own shadows already, and that was the intent all along.  Taking credit for the subsequent idiots' attempts merely serves their purpose of keeping us at it.
Mark my words.  The next big terrorist event will have nothing to do with aviation other than their mode of travel to the U.S. in the first place.
***How?  By simply rinsing  80:20 cotton-polyester blend clothing fabric briefly in a 2:1 mixture of sulfuric acid and nitric acid, then rinsing it in water and drying it. Turns the cotton into a wearable explosive that would not set off ANY electronic sniffer. The detonator?  The striker wheel from a simple butane lighter or any other spark source.  BTW -- nitrocellulose = guncotton, the original smokeless gunpowder. Pack it into a confined space once you're on the plane and you've got a bomb, approx 6X more powerful than traditional gunpowder.  Need it in a different yet just as undetectable form?  Use 100% pure cotton instead. While wet, compress the processed cotton in a jar of petroleum ether.  Turns it into a plastic that can be machined and moulded into just about any shape - fake CDs, computer cases, cell phone protectors, shoe liners, you name it. (Goes by the common name collodion, and used to be the the base material in film stock.  Nowadays its also commercially available in both solid and liquid form - used by bioresearch labs for mixing custom DNA and protein analysis gels).  Collodion is so flammable that once ignited, it will even burn under water - it provides its own oxidant during decomposition.  In fact, pouring water onto a "dry" collodion fire will convert the fire into an explosion.  In large masses collodion is also a contact explosive, just bang it together and it goes BOOM.
+++ I flew 1/2 way around the world -- New Zealand to the US and then all the way across the US -- with a 8 inch ceramic-bladed Benchmade hunting knife in my carry-on two years ago.  Forgot I had put it in the shoulder strap pocket of my knapsack when we were hunting Tahr in the Southern Alps; didn't remember it until I was unpacking at home.  It went through x-ray screening no less than 4 times and was never flagged by the screeners.  So much for technology solving the problem.
RE quote: "Our way of life has survived.".
No, it has not.


Right on target.  :aok
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 18, 2010, 11:47:32 AM
Floatsom, what kind of work do you do?

For the past 10 years i have oporated a tow truck. no i dont give pat downs to people before i let them in my truck, although sometimes i would really like to!!!  :x


Not surprisingly, after studying U.S. Code Title 49 and the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71) I can't find where the TSA gets it's authority to search passengers bodies in the manner they are doing.

They do have authority to search you physically if you cause the scanners (metal, body, baggage x-ray, dogs) to alarm or if you refuse to be checked by the machine scanners (this is the probable cause thing that law enforcement officers have to abide by). They are very explicit about scanning checked luggage and carry on luggage by both scanners, dogs and physical checks but not people, unless of course, you've given them a reason to suspect you. Which is perfectly legal.

Now, if you look at U. S. Code 18 under Sexual Abuse, you'll see how close the TSA is coming to commiting a crime at airport security checkpoints.


Blooz unforunately the federal code does not give an exact specific on the how to's of performing the physical body searches, but this is the foundation of their authority to perform the searches. the authority to do as the deam reasonable is drawn from the fact that the guideline does not specifically limit what they are allowed to do. quite to the contrary the guideline actually leaves it at the discretion of the agents performing the security checks.


TITLE 49 > SUBTITLE VII > PART A > subpart iii > CHAPTER 449 > SUBCHAPTER I >
§ 44903. Air transportation security
(b) Protection Against Violence and Piracy.— The Under Secretary shall prescribe regulations to protect passengers and property on an aircraft operating in air transportation or intrastate air transportation against an act of criminal violence or aircraft piracy. When prescribing a regulation under this subsection, the Under Secretary shall—
(1) consult with the Secretary of Transportation, the Attorney General, the heads of other departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States Government, and State and local authorities;
(2) consider whether a proposed regulation is consistent with—
(A) protecting passengers; and
(B) the public interest in promoting air transportation and intrastate air transportation;

the TSA gets its authority by the failure of the law makers to specifically limit them in what they are allowed to do. as a matter of fact the only limiting reference i could find was;

(3) to the maximum extent practicable, require a uniform procedure for searching and detaining passengers and property to ensure—
(A) their safety; and
(B) courteous and efficient treatment by an air carrier, an agent or employee of an air carrier, and Government, State, and local law enforcement personnel carrying out this section; and

but that falls short in preventing the body search, it becomes an opinional issue of what is courteous in the light of what is practicable to ensure the safety of others.

it doesnt say they can, but it does say the must strive to ensure the safety of all, so within the grey area they derive their authority.


so wolf buy your description i guess we should do absolutely nothing at all and we can all be either dead or growing beards next year right?

funny thing about people like you that say "well you can just do this or that or the other thing to defeat the security so we shouldnt have any" is that yours will be the first name on the law suite filled against whatever agency that you feel didnt secure your loved ones or your possession when/if they are harmed. especially if the manner in which they were harmed may have been preventable/avoidable with a little bit of effort from some type of security.

i have a silly question, when your children were little, say 3 or 4 years old, did you allow then to play in front of the stove when you were cooking? no? well why not? because you were protecting them from getting injured? well they could have just fallen down a flight of stairs, of stuck a fork in an eletrical outlet or drank the drano or eaten the rat poinson in the traps or ect instead of being burned buy the stove. but that didnt change the fact that you kept them from the stove and from all other forms of harm that you could, right?

safety and security is a progressive and ever changing animal. once you have protected them from the harms of one possible hazzard they find something new to do that puts them at risk, children are very creative when it comes to doing things that will get them hurt. does this mean you just say to hell with it and do nothing?

that is your logic, we cant win them all and there are so many things they could do so why even try to prevent what maybe we possibly can?

you prove your therory to be just tough guy talking trash if you have any children, or anything/one else for that matter, that you do whatever you can to protect.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: MORAY37 on November 18, 2010, 11:49:11 AM
Right.  One could walk onto a domestic airliner with a couple of pounds of nitrocellulose explosive and a detonator today*** and not even be questioned about it, nor would ANY of the current electromechanical technologies employed by the TSA detect it. Psychological and ethnic profiling plus detailed questioning by a trained professional would easily catch someone attempting such, but NO NO, picking on minorities and foreigners is MUCH more devastating to them (sarcasm intended) than having some stranger gawk at my wifes naked body in a scanner or letting her be groped by some lecher of a TSA guard who flunked the psych exam required to work at McDonalds is to her. Not to mention the fact that the GAO's independent analysis shows that the radiation dose absorbed during a routine scan series is, at a minimum, 10X what the TSA and the manufacturer claims it is. If I'm in another country, well then I have to submit to whatever they see fit there, BUT NOT HERE. To turn your previous question to me on its ear,  which is more important, my and my family's personal right to privacy, right to be secure in our selves and possessions against unreasonable search an seizure, and our psychological peace of mind or that of some non-U.S. citizen who has no such rights under our constitution?  I say MINE.  
Non-metallic weapons+++ and "old-school" conventional explosives are totally undetectable by the machinery you espouse. A nut-job out to kill people on a plane is 99.99% detectable by psych profiling.
Now, let's talk bioweapons...want to kill a plane full of people without resorting to explosives?  I can name you at least 6 "bugs" that will do the trick.  Want to inoculate a plane-load of pax and then let them spread a disease to, say 1/4 million people before the CDC even realizes they have an epidemic on their hands? That can be accomplished also.  All we need is a seed stock and common labware from a high school or undergraduate microbiology lab.  The seed stock for MANY human pathogens is available commercially TO ANYBODY from the ATCC (http://www.atcc.org) for a nominal processing fee.  We can incorporate genomic (not plasmidic) multiple antibiotic resistance into bacteria in just a week or so. MRSA  can be obtained from any hospital.  Viruses are a bit trickier, but the CDC's repository in Atlanta is a smorgasbord of opportunity and their security is worse than a 7-11 at 3 am if you know what you need and who on the campus has routine access to it.  Biologicals are totally  undetectable to the screening systems. (but much more effective sprayed onto the salad bar at a rest stop restuarant)
Chemical weapons?  Same deal.  Carry on the precursor macromolecules and catalysts / enzymes, then "build" it in the lav.  Doesn't take much to get the job done.  Three pax with less than 3oz each collaborating, and again, not detectable at security.
How about good ol' physical destruction?  Anyone with an AMM can figure out how to disable an airliner's systems from the pax cabin.  It isn't rocket science.  Need privacy or at least a short head start?   Gain access to the crawl spaces through the access panels in the rear lav floor and ceiling in most Boeing equipment.  Can't stop that with a screening machine either.
The bad guys haven't TRIED to thwart our security measures, yet.  If they had tried, there would be a LOT more dead airplanes and people.  The only sociopaths to try it recently, those who made the headlines, were too stupid to pound sand in a desert and they were not terrorists (except by George "Alfred P. Newman" Bush's definition, in which anything that moves and "isn't with us" is a terrorist).  Not all mass murderers are terrorists. A smart terrorist would go though TSA security like a hot knife through butter.  But, they don't need to.  One, its easier to go around it by becoming an airport or airline employee.  Two, they've got us chasing our own shadows already, and that was the intent all along.  Taking credit for the subsequent idiots' attempts merely serves their purpose of keeping us at it.
Mark my words.  The next big terrorist event will have nothing to do with aviation other than their mode of travel to the U.S. in the first place.
***How?  By simply rinsing  80:20 cotton-polyester blend clothing fabric briefly in a 2:1 mixture of sulfuric acid and nitric acid, then rinsing it in water and drying it. Turns the cotton into a wearable explosive that would not set off ANY electronic sniffer. The detonator?  The striker wheel from a simple butane lighter or any other spark source.  BTW -- nitrocellulose = guncotton, the original smokeless gunpowder. Pack it into a confined space once you're on the plane and you've got a bomb, approx 6X more powerful than traditional gunpowder.  Need it in a different yet just as undetectable form?  Use 100% pure cotton instead. While wet, compress the processed cotton in a jar of petroleum ether.  Turns it into a plastic that can be machined and moulded into just about any shape - fake CDs, computer cases, cell phone protectors, shoe liners, you name it. (Goes by the common name collodion, and used to be the the base material in film stock.  Nowadays its also commercially available in both solid and liquid form - used by bioresearch labs for mixing custom DNA and protein analysis gels).  Collodion is so flammable that once ignited, it will even burn under water - it provides its own oxidant during decomposition.  In fact, pouring water onto a "dry" collodion fire will convert the fire into an explosion.  In large masses collodion is also a contact explosive, just bang it together and it goes BOOM.
+++ I flew 1/2 way around the world -- New Zealand to the US and then all the way across the US -- with a 8 inch ceramic-bladed Benchmade hunting knife in my carry-on two years ago.  Forgot I had put it in the shoulder strap pocket of my knapsack when we were hunting Tahr in the Southern Alps; didn't remember it until I was unpacking at home.  It went through x-ray screening no less than 4 times and was never flagged by the screeners.  So much for technology solving the problem.
RE quote: "Our way of life has survived.".
No, it has not.


Wolf, you understand.  You went into more detail than I would have liked, as a scientist, but you understand.

I stand by my original statement.  The war on terror is over and we have objectively lost.



Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: dedalos on November 18, 2010, 11:53:27 AM
. . . .

I agree with you, but I would worry more about a US citizen than a foreigner.  I guess what I am saying is that someone boarding a plane in the US to do something bad is most likely here legally either as a citizen or green card or some kind of a long term visa, and not with a tourist visa or here eligibly.  Makes you wonder how they got in in the first place ehh?  Unless by foreigner you mean not white with blond hair.

For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: 68ZooM on November 18, 2010, 12:03:12 PM
now there coming out with evidence there using cavity bombs and not one of the scanners are able to detect them sense it's internal, whats next to board a plane grab your ankle's and cough, this all reminds me of a song line by the Kinks...  paranoia, they destroy ya
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: 68ZooM on November 18, 2010, 12:04:30 PM
Flot isnt your wife a lawyer? ( thought i remember you saying that a few times) apologize if i'm wrong
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Blooz on November 18, 2010, 12:08:39 PM
[quote author=FLOTSOM link=topic=300278.msg3849192#msg3849192 date=safety and security is a progressive and ever changing animal. once you have protected them from the harms of one possible hazzard they find something new to do that puts them at risk, children are very creative when it comes to doing things that will get them hurt. does this mean you just say to hell with it and do nothing?

[/quote]



Ok. So where does it stop? Let's say, that the TSA really does have the authority to search the way they do. When groping you, your wife and kids, do they stop at the first knuckle while reaching up into your/their butt? Do they stop at the wrist? Elbow? Tell me? Where do you draw the line? Why do you think the fourth amendment exists? Are you one of those that years ago burned their draft cards and shouted "Hell no! We won't go!" but now advocate that a govenment agent can fondle you, your wife and kids?

I don't advocate we do nothing. We all know that airline security is already very tight. Plus, I don't see how you think I'm a "tough guy talking trash" while just trying to explain to you how our liberty is being stripped away in the guise of security. Please wake up!
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 18, 2010, 12:32:22 PM
Flot isnt your wife a lawyer? ( thought i remember you saying that a few times) apologize if i'm wrong

no Zoom, smart enough to never get married. i had a very colorful youth so i spent alot of time involved in the legal system, go figure huh, i learned to read and interpret statutes based on necessity. i mostly taught myself, buy reading writting and many hours of conversations with some very smart but socially stupid people.

[quote author=FLOTSOM link=topic=300278.msg3849192#msg3849192 date=safety and security is a progressive and ever changing animal. once you have protected them from the harms of one possible hazzard they find something new to do that puts them at risk, children are very creative when it comes to doing things that will get them hurt. does this mean you just say to hell with it and do nothing?





Ok. So where does it stop? Let's say, that the TSA really does have the authority to search the way they do. When groping you, your wife and kids, do they stop at the first knuckle while reaching up into your/their butt? Do they stop at the wrist? Elbow? Tell me? Where do you draw the line? Why do you think the fourth amendment exists? Are you one of those that years ago burned their draft cards and shouted "Hell no! We won't go!" but now advocate that a govenment agent can fondle you, your wife and kids?

I don't advocate we do nothing. We all know that airline security is already very tight. Plus, I don't see how you think I'm a "tough guy talking trash" while just trying to explain to you how our liberty is being stripped away in the guise of security. Please wake up!

Blooz, the part of my response you are responding to was directed toward wolf and his wall of text on how to create a weapon you can smuggle past current sercurity. not at what you had stated.

i did not burn my draft card, i was too young for the draft. i wouldnt have burned it if i wasnt. personally i believe everyone should be made to perform some military service, kinda like they do in isreal.

i dont know where to draw the line, i never said i did. its got to be a balance between safety and privacy, but unfortunately when you are dealing with a person that will see how far you are willing to go for security and will then go further it becomes an almost impossible balance to find.

if you can find a reasonable balance then i will be first to sign your petition.

i dont have the answers to defeating the threats that exist while not making your family feel uncomfortable. if i had an answer i would share. but i can tell you all this without doubt, i am happy to sit here and argue with you all over this because we are here to do so. i would absolutely resent and be angered by losing any one of you or your opinions to an act of violence that could have been prevented. life is life, accidents and old age and the breaking down of the body happens, these things i can understand and will live with. but not an act of violence that may have been stoppable.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Westy on November 18, 2010, 12:45:08 PM
"tbh all this is going to do is make osama be more creative."

Right. Cause Obama creatively made the TSA, wrapped it up under Homeland
Security and enabled it withall the sins that go along with the Patriot Acts and
then he had good ole around Chertoff to push having these scanners put in right
after the "underwear" bomber attempted to murder a few hundred people on a
plane to Detroit!

Yuh know. I'm not sure he could get any more creative and top that..
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: dedalos on November 18, 2010, 01:12:57 PM
but not an act of violence that may have been stoppable.

Aren't they all stoppable?  All we have to do is have a 24 hour curfew and only get out of the house upon requesting and receiving permission from our protectors.  Then the cameras would follow us and law enforcement would respond and arrest who ever did not follow his agreed upon rout.  I would feel really safe then and happy that I would not be able to lose any of you in an act of violence.  Unless of coarse that act happened while you were not following the route you had been permitted to follow on your way to the grocery store and our protectors had to make sure you could not hurt us if that was your plan.  Is that what you are shooting for?

Since you wont answer, I ll take a guess.  Are part of some kind of law enforcement agency?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Vulcan on November 18, 2010, 03:06:52 PM
"tbh all this is going to do is make osama be more creative."

Right. Cause Obama creatively made the TSA, wrapped it up under Homeland
Security and enabled it withall the sins that go along with the Patriot Acts and
then he had good ole around Chertoff to push having these scanners put in right
after the "underwear" bomber attempted to murder a few hundred people on a
plane to Detroit!

Yuh know. I'm not sure he could get any more creative and top that..

Reading comprehension westy... reading comprehension.

Reread what I wrote, and very very carefully whom I wrote about.

Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Westy on November 18, 2010, 03:12:47 PM
heheh.  oops.

tbh quite a lot of the very right-of-center folks call him that name.

my bad.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: FLOTSOM on November 18, 2010, 05:50:26 PM
Aren't they all stoppable?  All we have to do is have a 24 hour curfew and only get out of the house upon requesting and receiving permission from our protectors.  Then the cameras would follow us and law enforcement would respond and arrest who ever did not follow his agreed upon rout.  I would feel really safe then and happy that I would not be able to lose any of you in an act of violence.  Unless of coarse that act happened while you were not following the route you had been permitted to follow on your way to the grocery store and our protectors had to make sure you could not hurt us if that was your plan.  Is that what you are shooting for?

Since you wont answer, I ll take a guess.  Are part of some kind of law enforcement agency?

what about the multiple posts i have already made in this thread would lead you to believe i wouldn't answer your question? if you missed my response to your question about what i do for a living look back just a little bit and you will find my answer. but to ensure that you are not left wondering, NO i do not work for any type of law enforcement agency.

i have just erased a wall of text i wrote in response to your absurd statement. but after rereading it, and considering the types of responses it would likely evoke, i have come to the conclussion that having this conversation with people who have no true respect for the sacrifices others have made and are continuing to make on their behalf, is a waste of my time and effort.

i wish you all healthy happy and long lives free from the victimization of violent acts commited against them and the ones they love.

i am out of this conversation.

Peace!
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Blooz on November 18, 2010, 06:49:08 PM

 i have come to the conclussion that having this conversation with people who have no true respect for the sacrifices others have made and are continuing to make on their behalf, is a waste of my time and effort.


You mean the sacrifices of those made so we can live in a FREE country?

I'm a vet. I have more respect for sacrifice than you can possibly fathom.

You want to talk respect? How about respecting the law abiding citizen? How about respect for the constitution?

If this stuff was being done in a school, you'd be livid!
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: bj229r on November 18, 2010, 08:15:10 PM
What happens when some terrorist packs a bomb in his mudcutter...and they catch HIM?

"Sir, has your arse been in your control the whole time?"

yes...

"Has anyone unknown to you, packed your arse?"

NOBODY'S PACKED MY ARSE!


Ya show you I.D. every 3 feet all the way to the plane...then there is aNOTHER line....guy has a rubber glove, and a vat of K-Y jelly...

Then ya gotta sit in the middle seat for 3 hours with that squishy K-Y feeling,,,
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Rash on November 18, 2010, 08:39:47 PM
Relax, I'm from the government.

I would be all for the full body pat down, as long as I could chose from a line up of some fine women, as long as I could get a happy ending.

Rash
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: allaire on November 18, 2010, 08:40:53 PM
Then ya gotta sit in the middle seat for 3 hours with that squishy K-Y feeling,,,
Had an over 30 physical before? :rofl
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: eagl on November 18, 2010, 11:15:16 PM
I find it funny that a military commander can't order someone to submit to a full body search without that person being arrested or detained, yet it is somehow legal to order a military member to fly via commercial airline where that military member will be subjected to either a thorough groping or having nudie pics taken of them.

The military goes to such great lengths to do the right thing in this area, that during our recurring fitness tests, the waist measurement has to be done by a same-sex test administrator who has undergone special training.  No, in the military, you gotta get arrested before you are subjected to a full body search.  Except when you're ordered to fly commercial, then it's perfectly fine to get involuntarily groped without being arrested or detained for cause, and you can't decline because that would be "failure to go" punishable under the UCMJ.

Funny how the US used to be proud about standing up against that sort of thing in the world.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: warhed on November 19, 2010, 03:25:29 AM
This issue in a big part is controllable by your airport.
Airports are NOT required to use TSA personnel.  They can use private companies, as long as those private companies follow TSA procedure.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: SirFrancis on November 19, 2010, 06:00:05 AM
This issue in a big part is controllable by your airport.
Airports are NOT required to use TSA personnel.  They can use private companies, as long as those private companies follow TSA procedure.

yep, thats true.

Sanford Airport is showing TSA the finger...

http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/11/sanford-airport-to-opt-out-of.html
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: dedalos on November 19, 2010, 08:23:28 AM
You mean the sacrifices of those made so we can live in a FREE country?

I'm a vet. I have more respect for sacrifice than you can possibly fathom.

You want to talk respect? How about respecting the law abiding citizen? How about respect for the constitution?

If this stuff was being done in a school, you'd be livid!


 :rofl Exactly!  He seems to confuse people signing up to give their lives to ensure others leave comfortable and in peace, with the people getting groped and abused at the airport.  Kind of not the same thing I would think.  He actually undermines what those people fought for and gave their lives for by supporting all this.  But I guess his only argument is to twist things around and through insults.

Do not confuse people sacrificing their lives willingly for you with some grandma catching a flight to go see her grand kids  :lol
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: dedalos on November 19, 2010, 08:27:57 AM
I find it funny that a military commander can't order someone to submit to a full body search without that person being arrested or detained, yet it is somehow legal to order a military member to fly via commercial airline where that military member will be subjected to either a thorough groping or having nudie pics taken of them.

The military goes to such great lengths to do the right thing in this area, that during our recurring fitness tests, the waist measurement has to be done by a same-sex test administrator who has undergone special training.  No, in the military, you gotta get arrested before you are subjected to a full body search.  Except when you're ordered to fly commercial, then it's perfectly fine to get involuntarily groped without being arrested or detained for cause, and you can't decline because that would be "failure to go" punishable under the UCMJ.

Funny how the US used to be proud about standing up against that sort of thing in the world.

Even more funny.  A guy that just spent 2 years being shot at by the enemy, is not trusted to board a plane in his country, the one he was lucky not to  have died for, and he needs to be searched at the airport  :rofl

Uhhh, Sir?  We do trust you to give your life for us, but not to get on this plane.  Bend over please, and have a happy flight  :rofl
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Shuffler on November 19, 2010, 09:29:25 AM
Even more funny.  A guy that just spent 2 years being shot at by the enemy, is not trusted to board a plane in his country, the one he was lucky not to  have died for, and he needs to be searched at the airport  :rofl

Uhhh, Sir?  We do trust you to give your life for us, but not to get on this plane.  Bend over please, and have a happy flight  :rofl

I see your point but there was a sodier who threw a grenade into a tent and killed other soldiers. Then the wacko soldier in Texas who shot and killed 12........

It is a crying shame but soldiers should be checked like everyone else. The main point is the TSA is out of control.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: dedalos on November 19, 2010, 09:50:25 AM
I see your point but there was a sodier who threw a grenade into a tent and killed other soldiers. Then the wacko soldier in Texas who shot and killed 12........

It is a crying shame but soldiers should be checked like everyone else. The main point is the TSA is out of control.

Yes, but why only on airplanes then?  Why are we so worried about airplanes?  The same guy could walk into a bar and take out a lot more people if he wanted to.  My guess is that airplanes cost a lot of money and airlines or their insurance companies do not want to  have to pay for a new one.  So really, who is TSA really protecting?  Us or some insurance company?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Shuffler on November 19, 2010, 09:51:39 AM
Yes, but why only on airplanes then?  Why are we so worried about airplanes?  The same guy could walk into a bar and take out a lot more people if he wanted to.  My guess is that airplanes cost a lot of money and airlines or their insurance companies do not want to  have to pay for a new one.  So really, who is TSA really protecting?  Us or some insurance company?

Agreed!

They all point to 9/11...... but on 9/11 they were not blowing up planes, they were using them. Kansas City could just as easily happen again.

All you need is nut jobs and there are plenty of them around.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Westy on November 19, 2010, 10:45:37 AM
"Funny how the US used to be proud about standing up against that sort of thing in the world."

Let me whip out a popular response from 2004.

What's the problem if you have nothing to hide??
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: zack1234 on November 19, 2010, 11:45:09 AM
i have had retinal scan and finger prints etc when entering US,chick dealing with me was very nice and polite, i think it was the uniform that did it for me :old:
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: MORAY37 on November 19, 2010, 11:58:33 AM
I honestly think this policy will last about 60 days.  When those airlines that are just about at bankruptcy realize that there is a segment of the population out there that really WON'T fly because of all of this.... they're going to raise holy hell about the procedures...(because their bottom line just dropped off)

That's when all this will end, and we'll pass the "profiling" procedures like the Israelis do now, and bomb sniffing dogs, which is what they (the TSA, not Chertoff) really wanted anyway.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Serenity on November 19, 2010, 12:23:05 PM
"Funny how the US used to be proud about standing up against that sort of thing in the world."

Let me whip out a popular response from 2004.

What's the problem if you have nothing to hide??

Um, unzipped DNA? Handing over a bit too much privacy?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Westy on November 19, 2010, 01:59:20 PM

What has been your stance on the Patriot Acts Serenity?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Serenity on November 19, 2010, 02:31:27 PM
What has been your stance on the Patriot Acts Serenity?

In all honesty, I haven't taken one. I doubt I am the subject of the wire taps, etc., and so I never connected with the issue on a personal level. I have such a strong opinion here because I fly frequently.
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: VonMessa on November 19, 2010, 02:36:16 PM
In all honesty, I haven't taken one. I doubt I am the subject of the wire taps, etc., and so I never connected with the issue on a personal level. I have such a strong opinion here because I fly frequently.

Well how about the ADS-B requirements about to be implemented?
Title: Re: Sir, We need to do a body scan..."No Thank You"
Post by: Golfer on November 19, 2010, 02:56:58 PM
In all honesty, I haven't taken one. I doubt I am the subject of the wire taps, etc., and so I never connected with the issue on a personal level. I have such a strong opinion here because I fly frequently.

"I have nothing to hide so I don't care if you check on me" is not liberty.