TSA Defends Pat Down of 4-Year-Old Girl 1174
cosm writes "With public outcry against the TSA continuing to spread, the TSA is defending a recent episode in which a four-year-old was patted down while kicking and screaming at Wichita Airport in Kansas. From the AP article: 'The grandmother of a 4-year-old girl who became hysterical during a security screening at a Kansas airport said Wednesday that the child was forced to undergo a pat-down after hugging her, with security agents yelling and calling the crying girl an uncooperative suspect.'"
LOL! American Freedom! (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL! American Freedom!
They called her an :uncooperative subject" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not making the likelihood of attack decrease, it's just moving the crowd (target) out of the plane and into the queue for security.
My 2 cents (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA... where the agents are pedophiles, the supervisors are thieves and the ones pointing out flaws in the system are unemployed.
Security Theater (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorists, as the name implies, operate more on the psychological impact of what they do than the physical impact. Hijacking a plane and then crashing it wherever they want has a significantly higher psychological impact on the populace than just bombing an airport (not to say that doesn't have an impact, just less of one). So even if that were the only effect, it'd still be disincentive for a terrorist act because they have limited resources and need every strike to count for it to be effective. However, the TSA has an abysmal record of preventing people that should be suspects from getting on the plane anyway.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
I was going to say that any other person trying to pat down a 4 year old would be considered a child molester...
Missing the key (Score:5, Insightful)
the agents are pedophiles, the supervisors are thieves and the ones pointing out flaws in the system are unemployed ...and the architects are multi-millionaires.
Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? The cockpit door is locked and the rest of the passengers won't let anyone hijack the plane anymore anyway.
Re:My 2 cents (Score:5, Insightful)
The very existence of TSA proves the victory of OSAMA. I'm sorry to say this, but it's true.
Re:Little brat (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how my civil liberties are being violated when boarding a plane; everyone should have the same equal protections and confidence that each and every passenger is not going try and hurt anyone on the plane
You don't see how civil liberties and privacy are being violated when you're forced to be patted down and searched when trying to travel?
If you're so scared of terrorists, never leave your house. There is no right to feel safe at the expense of everyone's freedom and privacy. Not only that, but increased cockpit security and civilian awareness of the consequences of plane hijackings is more than enough.
They have won (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the terrorists have gotten more then they have lost. We live in fear, giving up our rights and freedoms in order to gain the illusion of "security". Then again, this is a police state's wet dream - a passive, docile, and accepting population who never question. (Meaning population as a whole, we know there are plenty of individuals and small organizations that do question the state.)
Re:... because terrorrists don't have children. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Little brat (Score:2, Insightful)
People have been known to mule all sort of things up their assholes and vaginas. Therefore, everyone should get a free cavity search (women get a two-for-one of course) before being allowed through security. As long as EVERYONE is probled I don't have a problem with it. This should of course also include staff. Get up in there and have a good feel'around!
Re:"Just let strangers touch you, honey" (Score:4, Insightful)
Spread your legs for your country, little girl.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
I travel a lot less than I did before TSA showed up. I grew up in an age when "nobody can touch you there without your permission, and if they do, you fight them. You kick, you scream, and you keep fighting until you get help".
Todays parents have to teach their kids "nobody can touch you there without your permission unless they have a cute little patch [sodahead.com] on their shoulder. You can fight the priest if he does it. But not the people at the airport. You can't even call for the policeman who's standing 20 feet away to help you. You have to let them do it". I loved America when it was free. I'm looking to emigrate.
Explain to me again, who are the terrorists?
Parody from pre-2010: My First Cavity Search: Ages 6 and up [thegatewaypundit.com].
Reality in 2012: Four year olds. Four year olds, dude.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course. (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess Americans must enjoy being victimized by the TSA, otherwise somebody would have done something more than protest by now..
Re:Little brat (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
After 9/11, we're all terrorists now.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
This +5 Insightful communication operates at pretty much the same level as my dogs' communication when they see a stranger out the front window. The bad news: you're not as tough as you think you are. The good news: you're probably not as reckless and violent as you want to think you are, either.
Here's hoping it's all fantasy, and you don't actually have a daughter to expose to these kinds of "Insight".
Re:Of course. (Score:2, Insightful)
Big jaw until you're in that situation. You'll be cuffed so fucking fast you won't know what hit you.
Re:Of course. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's depressingly naive of you. Do you really think that there aren't people who are comforted by this show of security theater?
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course. (Score:0, Insightful)
sure thing, internet tough guy. whatever you say.
Fellow passengers are your best defense (Score:5, Insightful)
If TSA were to mount a publicity campaign to encourage fighting back (in the appropriate circumstances, of course), the odds would be even further improved.
But that would make far too much sense, and nobody would get rich selling useless tech to the government...
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:They called her an :uncooperative subject" (Score:3, Insightful)
Both parties benefit from security theater and the small parties can't win now. We're stuck.
Vote for the smaller parties anyway. It's the only way they can grow big.
Happening in Canada now too (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't just happening in the US anymore. My wife flew from Ottawa to London, Ontario with our two kids (2 month old daughter and 2 year old son) last July. They made my son take off his jacket, hat and teddy bear, put them through the x-ray, then wait on one side of the metal detector while my wife went through with our daughter. At that point he starting crying and trying to pull away from the big stranger forcefully restraining him from his mom. After verifying that my wife and daughter didn't set off the alarm, they waited for all the items to go through the x-ray. Only then did they sent my son through the metal detector, on his own. I got to watch the whole scenario from the dining area on the next floor up, and I've never in my lunch wanted to just hit someone as badly as I did then.
Can anyone venture a plausible reason why they couldn't have sent my son through with my wife, and then just scanned them individually in the event that the detector went off?
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem. When was the last time you saw ONE TSA rent-a-cop at a security check point.
Your actions while noble will likely be short lived and you will get to make a new personal friend with a glove on in the back room. It's the standard toughguy scenario we all suffer from. Yes I would defend my daughter. No I would not go apeshit at a group of armed people just because they patted her down while she was having a tantrum.
Remember, you're no good to her dead or in prison.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA is correct (Score:4, Insightful)
It's true. The TSA is correct when they say they were following the correct TSA procedures.
So let's not work to get those agents disciplined. Let's take this as a wake-up call that the TSA's procedures, and possibly their very existence, need to be re-thought.
If following the rules leads to this sort of incident, then the rules are bad and need to be changed. Simple as that.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop Flying! (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop flying you fucking retards. Eventually the message will get through. Money talks.
Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense (Score:5, Insightful)
You think they don't know that? The TSA is not some collection of informed rules being constructed by reasonable minds -- it's a wrecking ball whose only mission is "protection at all costs" and all decisions are being made by people who fear losing their jobs more than they fear a terrorist attack. When advocating for rehabilitation instead of punishment is a "soft on crime" position and advocating a responsible global policy of power protection is a "soft on defense" position then advocating for a reasonable set of security procedures at checkpoints is "soft on terrorism." We can't just try to /teach/ the TSA. That's impossible at this point. We need something that shows the people that the TSA /is/ terrorism if we want to rein it in. At least, that's the world we live in right now.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to wreck your heroic fantasies - but all over the world, at different times, brutal regimes have broken families, murdered children in front of their parents eyes, raped people ... all in front of their watching powerless partners who could do bugger all. Heroic resistance of individuals is something that works only in Hollywood movies. Even in fairly recent times some so called "civilized Western" countries were still stealing children form their families for political reasons (eg google for stolen generation in Australia). It has happened in the past, is happening now, and unfortunately will probably still happen in the foreseeable future - and not just in bogeyman countries with third world dictators.
The USA has started on a downward spiral into a totalitarian regime with no regard whatsoever for human rights or life. I am not sure whether they are past the point of no return where simple and peaceful measures such as elections could still change something - but in any case, should the TSA molest your child, you will most likely be powerlessly sobbing while their henchmen hold you down, and afterwards probably ponder in jail what good your token resistance did while your child is raised in some state orphanage.
Re:Of course. (Score:2, Insightful)
If their rules stated that small children are excluded from searching even after they go through security and then run back and hug an adult who has not gone through security, the obvious hole would be known. Don't know about you, but I can't forget the numerous stories of terrorist strapping explosives to women and sending them out to be blown up.
Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... (Score:4, Insightful)
"It's not hard to imagine scenarios"
That is the problem. That right there.
I choose not to live in fear.
Fear is the mind killer. Or society in this case.
Re:This doesn't seem that bad IMO... (Score:5, Insightful)
but I'm a business traveler and know how these things look.
You're defending the molestation of a four year old girl because the government thought she was a threat to national security because she wanted to say goodbye to her grandmother. This is one of those McCarthy era moments where I have to ask, do you have any sense of decency or shred of humanity left in your body? Or do you really believe that molesting children and the elderly makes you safer? Even if we pretend that's true, why in the hell do you find that acceptable?
The threats we should accept as the price to live in a free and open society are tiny in comparison to the injustice of living in a militarized police state. Giving the government more power to molest, imprison, search, and detain people with impunity are the real dangers to our democracy, not the memory of a single terrorist attack 10 years ago. We have locks on the cockpit doors. We have Air Marshals in the cabin. We can retain some reasonable security checkpoints. But when your society tells you that it's acceptable for an adult to put their hands all over a child because they are a threat to national security, you can be damn sure you don't live in a free and rational society.
I also travel for business, and I would rather die in a terrorist attack than live in a police state where people who want to travel are subject to molestation.
Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue at the airport was that there was a chance for an adult who had not been screened to do something like stash an explosive device in the clothes of the kid who had already been screened. The person with access to the kid had not been screened. The perfect way to use the kid as an unwitting mule until the adult caught up with the kid again onboard. The odds of an adult family member actually using a kid this way? Very slim. The odds of an adult being willing to die and take other people with them? Not zero. The SOP of not allowing any pre-screened people to physically interact with post-screened people about to board an aircraft? Makes perfect sense. They could have handled this particular screaming kid more gracefully.
Re:Of course. (Score:2, Insightful)
Lastly, if you're going to allow the TSA to pat down adults for stupid reasons, you're going to have to allow the TSA to pat down children too, for the same stupid reasons.
Re:Of course. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fellow passengers are your best defense (Score:4, Insightful)
... even if they have hostages and even if they have knives.
I totally agree, from the safety of my computer terminal many thousands of miles away from the US.
Now, hands up who volunteers to be the first one to get to the hijacker, more than likely to be mortally wounded, so that the rest may live.
Anybody?
We're too scared to say "No." to a barely competent security guard when he demands to manhandle a 4 year old. What makes you think we'll actually try and stop a plane hijacking? I can't help but think that this is armchair quarterbacking at its finest, as much as I hate to say it.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not denying crashing a plane has a strong psychological impact, but a few things to consider:
- Hijacking a plane is no longer possible thanks to locked doors in cockpits. Unless the terrorists somehow manage to smuggle a blowtorch on the plane, they can't take control of it. Of course this wouldn't stop bombing a plane, but the psychological impact is not much greater than bombing the line-up at the airport security (like happened in Russia last year).
- Protecting planes is nice, but as you say there are other targets out there, some of which probably have much stronger psychological impact than a plane.
How about bombing a mall full of Christmas shoppers? I'm sure this would really hurt Americans - finding out one of their most precious holidays, a holiday about peace and generosity no less, is not safe from terrorism.
Or how about shooting a school full of children? Considering how little schools can do to protect against students shooting their classmates, what could they possibly do against a couple of trained terrorists with automatic guns?
- By protecting planes so much and making people feel safe, you increase the psychological impact an attack on another target would have. If terrorists blew up another plane, Americans would be shocked but would also think "we knew planes weren't safe, no surprise really". Now if terrorists bombed a very different target, even one that normally would have a small psychological impact, Americans will realize they aren't safe anywhere - not in the street, not at work, not at school, not at a baseball match, not at the store, not on the highway, not at the theater, not in public parks... And this realization that no place is safe will be the huge psychological impact. Many say Americans became paranoid after 9/11 - I hope we never see how paranoid they'll be once they realize they're not even safe in places they go to every week.
So at least for this reason, not going overboard with safety and just telling Americans "there's no such thing as perfect security, deal with it" you might reduce the risk of another attack. Less confidence in safety = less surprise = less psychological impact = less incentives for terrorists to do another attack = lesser risk of an attack.
- There's also the question of whether or not another terrorist attack could occur. 9/11 was a first in the USA since... forever. First time a plane was destroyed like this. It's been 10 years now, without any other serious attempts (the underwear and shoe bombers were poorly organized, definitely not as serious as 9/11. They also occurred when the USA was invading Iraq and Afghanistan, so it's not clear if those attacks were anti-USA or just a form of warfare for the terrorists. And anyway, the TSA did not help against this at all).
Europe might also be a good indication: attacks occurred in Madrid and London in retaliation for those countries' involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Other countries like France were also involved in those wars and therefore at threat. Yet only these two attacks occurred, despite France, Germany and others not taking any particularly drastic security measures. The option and the reason to attack are there, yet it isn't happening. Maybe nobody really wants to attack that much?
The death toll of terrorism in the USA is small. In the 10 years since (and including) 9/11, more lives were lost to car accidents or smoking than to 9/11. The money and time invested in the TSA could have saved thousands of poor people from death by providing them with food, shelter or medical help. If the purpose is to save lives, focusing so much on terrorism is absurd.
And of course, the question remains: how many people will die from cancer due to the nude scanner? Probably more than terrorism could kill.
- Finally, there's the question of "is this the only option?"
Why are the USA at risk of attacks while other western countries, like those of Europe and Canada, are not? (I know a few attacks occurred in Europe, however these were in response to the war
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
And after you were thrown in jail (assuming you weren't killed by police officers during your violent rampage), who would protect your 4 year old daughter then? Do you truly think her childhood would be better with you dead or in jail?
Yes, the situation you describe is a shitty one, but taking the short-sided approach of "kill the guy who's close by" is not the best way to protect your family. You are responsible for protecting your child her entire life, not just for that one instant. So grow the fuck up and learn how to control your primal instincts, or else you will indeed be letting your family down.
Re:Of course. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, ALL the many times that's happened in any airport. It's crazy how common people are blowing themselves up these days.
Re:Of course. (Score:4, Insightful)
As an actual parent, who has flown with them numerous times (including returning with an 18 month old right after the shoe bomber & having her shoes checked), I have found that the parent remaining calm and explaining what's going on goes a long way towards avoiding panic & meltdowns. The couple of times the kids have had light patdowns, I didn't see it as molestation; we've never had the full new procedure. The TSA grunts are just doing their jobs, they aren't getting any kicks from patting down the kids, the kids don't need to freak out. I think in this case the idiots should have used more tact, but saying you'd go all ninja on them is a crock.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's all bs & I fly as little as possible these days, but a patdown is not an attack.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
if terrorists wanted bomb something, they'd do it AT THE GIANT CLUSTERFUCK SECURITY CHECKPOINTS.
Re:Of course. (Score:3, Insightful)
The TSA is the Terrorist Surrogate Army.
The terrorists won, but since they're a rather small group, they've managed to convince the American people and (more importantly, their government) to install an occupying force at every domestic airport plus no few other places where the American people would be otherwise free to travel about.
In other words, they're doing what everyone else does these days. Outsourcing the job to foreign (in this case US) labor.
And thus, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave shows itself for the Land of the Controlled and the Home of the Cowards.
Sooner or later, irrespective of whether or not we have a TSA, another terrorist attack will succeed. If the administration is Democratic, Republicans will claim it's because Democrats are soft on terrorism and haven't been doing enough to keep us safe. If the administration is Republican, Republicans will point and say that it's the fault of the weak-kneed soft-headed Liberals hamstringing their valiant efforts to keep us safe. The Democrats will say equally pointless and revolting things, since party means more than country or principles these days. But that's just a sideshow.
This nation was not founded by people who wanted more than anything to be "safe". When the next plane goes down - and sooner or later it will, it can be full of screaming heroes or screaming cowardly slaves. They'll die either way, TSA or no TSA, and given the "last war" mentality of the TSA, it probably won't make a lick of difference how much we're groped or stripped. It's up to us to decide which we want to be.
Freedom isn't maintained by a bunch of 2nd-Amendment shouters hauling automatic weapons through the woods. The 2nd Amendment goes down the toilet once you set foot in an airport. The 2nd Amendment can't even protect against domestic government agression. A bunch of people toting their own personal Kalishnikovs and Uzis don't stand a chance against drones, tanks, and backpack nukes - it takes a well-regulated militia to do that. On the other hand, freedom very definitely is maintained when people stand up and say "Enough is Enough!", whether they're armed or not. And sometimes better when they are not. Especially when they stand up at the ballot boxes and vote for people who'll do what they demand instead of simply voting for whoever best quacks out the party line that they happen to agree with.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the TSA hadn't been so horrible and bastardly during this encounter, nobody would have heard of this happening except the people in that immediate area. There would have been no story, no news, nobody would know or care.
I doubt any other passengers are going to complain that a 4-year-old hugged their family member, and I doubt that it's going to be a blogworthy encounter for anyone involved...until the heavy-handed retardmobile of the TSA steps in and puts all of their limbs squarely in their mouths.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is funny, because they love to tell you that you can't leave the line once you line up. This is tantamount to false arrest, since they don't have the authority for arrest.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course. (Score:4, Insightful)
By "Muslims" do you mean "Islamic Extremists"? There is a pretty wide difference there.
Also, the actual act of using children as soldiers/suicide bombers is much more prevalent in African, Eastern Asian, and South American countries than it is in the middle east. It was a common tactic among South American rebels during the 80s, and it is a common situation in Africa among lawless organizations and people trying to coup various countries.
It's nice to see the "brown people are terrorists" propaganda has properly programmed you to jump to Middle-Eastern people when you think terrorist. I will report back to Psi Ops and the Ministry of Disinformation that their efforts are worthwhile.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite right.
Get enough people bottlenecked at a checkpoint and you just give the terrorists an easier target.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Funny, but I can't remember a single example of a 4-year-old obviously American child traveling in the US with her grandmother who has ever blown anything up.
Your internet security comparison is spot on, however like most internet security people, you fail to understand that sometimes holes are OK. Plugging holes costs something. In the IT world, plugging holes costs money and sometimes makes other work impossible to do or more difficult, which costs time and money. We need to strike a balance, not provide impenetrable security at any cost. In this case, plugging holes costs you your privacy and perhaps your right to protect your children (Did they seriously say they wanted to take a 4-year-old girl to a private room WITHOUT a family member present?).
Just doing some quick googling, about 640 million times last year, a passenger got on a plane in the US and flew somewhere. Zero times they were blown up by a terrorist. If you extend that back 11 years so we can catch 9/11, that's ~7 billion passengers and 246 who were blown up by a terrorist. Well, crashed into something, and again, zero who were killed by 4-year-old American child terrorists.
Maybe I'm just not risk averse enough, but I prefer the 28,000,000 to one chance terrorists are going to take out the plane, or almost infinity-to-one that it's going to be done by a 4-year-old, over the much-smaller-number to 1 chance that my kid is going to be groped.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, go ahead and blame the victim when the system is at fault.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
During all of this, literally hundreds of people stood by watching and did nothing. So I guess we did see the "true colors of this nation" as you said. It's the color of terrorized weaklings.
Quoted for fucking emphasis.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but you're good to everyone if you get sent there for protecting your daughter from TSA molestation. Seriously, we'd see the true colors of this nation and the control the politicians and corporate overlords really hold if someone went berserk at a checkpoint trying to protect their child. It'd be easier for the nation to swallow if it were a mother, but a father might be close enough.
Tomorrows' headline (Slashdot version): "Father Imprisoned for Defending Toddler from Physical Abuse at TSA Checkpoint"
Tomorrow's headline (TSA Spin version, actually reported): "Violent Attacker Imprisoned for Seriously Injuring Anti-Terrorism Personnel after Checkpoint Security Breach".
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
9/11 really did change everything...
It did.. These evil people that want total control over you, they are running your country.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing: No one's saying small children should be excluded from screening.
Where did you get that idea? There shouldn't be any screening. And if there truly must be, it needs to be applied by humans, not robots made of meat. A human fucking being would not have searched that child.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I am saying we don't need to screen 4 year olds.
Seriously as a culture, we have lost our minds.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course. (Score:4, Insightful)
I feel your pain and my sentiments about this run bloody as well. But lets not waste that passion by beating our breasts, save it up to fuel your political motivations. Instead, find a candidate that will represent your views on this and work towards getting this person elected. It's a win/win situation to get involved. If your candidate wins, your efforts are paid off, you have helped make America a better place.
If your candidate loses, then you have made friends and bonds with others who are at least passionate enough to spend time fighting this evil politically. Face time, in real life, away from the prying eyes of spies from corporations and governments, among real people is were effective movements start. The power of "word of mouth" in an age of instant communication should never be underestimated.
Inform and educated your friends.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
The position is called checkmate.
Whilst it's easy to call all those people watching terrorized weaklings, look at the situation. If you intervene and actually disrupt the screening agents, your minimally looking at a felony. If they really want to get you, they'll tack on a terrorist charge, and then you're really fucked. It really is too much to ask for a random citizen to intervene when the position is knowing your whole life as you know it, will likely be over after that moment. You can call them weak, but the situation has become that extreme for anyone to interfere.
By that example, the Government has us all at checkmate. Yes it's absurd, and wrong, and unjust, but that's the hand we've accepted out of fear and nationalistic drumming during a time of mass post-traumatic stress. Our elected officials reacted, and we're now living with those results. Want it changed? Let your voice be heard, but not at the TSA checkpoint. Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING good can come out of doing it there.
Exactly! I was saying that too! (Score:5, Insightful)
This B.S. about being so concerned little kids are "security threats" because of a potential to strap a bomb to their body is just that.... utter paranoia.
What I find extremely odd about all of this is the fact that so many of us accept this nonsense while in line to get on a plane, yet if similar policies were enacted in other public places, there'd be a huge outcry (primarily because it would suddenly be a regular inconvenience instead of a novelty). If we're *truly* concerned about this being an issue, we need to start searching all the babies and toddlers as they enter the grocery stores, movie theaters and sports arenas - and definitely at least pat down and wand everyone before they start to use a gas pump at a filling station! Huge potential for disaster otherwise, there.
At some point, I just want to grab some people by the collars, shake them, and yell, "Life is NOT safe, ok!?! Get OVER it!" Maybe, in some isolated case, one of the days, someone really WILL bring a 4 year old kid onto a plane with a bomb under his shirt. Ok, fine! That's horrible, but it MAY happen. Someone may walk outside on a stormy night and get struck by lightning and die, too. Someone else may get in their car to drive to work and get in a fiery multi-car collision, killing dozens of people. (Better odds of that than the baby/bomb scenario.) Should we just stay in bed all day and do NOTHING in public, to protect us from all these possibilities?
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, not exactly what you were asking for, but Hindawi packed the bomb into the carry-on bag of his pregnant Irish fiancee [wikipedia.org].
So it's not really a stretch to think that someone would be depraved enough to hide a bomb on their little daughter and sacrifice their mother in law. Same for e.g. the neighbor's little daughter and her grandmother. Illustrates nicely why racial profiling doesn't work, either.
Despite having a little daughter - if you have a TSA at all I can see why they might want to pat down a girl her age. However if they want to do that, it must be done in a humane way. Someone shouting at a little child in that situation needs to be fired and fined.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Separating children from parents by strangers in an institutional setting should NEVER be allowed. I mean, Think Of The Children actually applies here.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, not exactly what you were asking for, but Hindawi packed the bomb into the carry-on bag of his pregnant Irish fiancee [wikipedia.org].
So it's not really a stretch to think that someone would be depraved enough to hide a bomb on their little daughter and sacrifice their mother in law. Same for e.g. the neighbor's little daughter and her grandmother. Illustrates nicely why racial profiling doesn't work, either.
Despite having a little daughter - if you have a TSA at all I can see why they might want to pat down a girl her age. However if they want to do that, it must be done in a humane way. Someone shouting at a little child in that situation needs to be fired and fined.
There are two problems leading to situations like this, firstly the TSA screeners have little more then a high-school diploma and a weeks training, because of this, management, in true government from, treats them like idiots. They give them no room for interpretation or leeway on how to respond to any incident their choices are control the situation and get the person to submit to the screening or let them slide and loose their job. Do we need some form of screening absolutely YES, is using unqualified staff and a bureaucratic policies they way to achieve this, the results speak for themselves. If they truly cared about security they would have higher qualifications for the screeners, and trust them to make decisions on the ground instead of micromanaging from Washington. The problem is not that the screeners need new rules that children should be treated differently, it's that Napolitano shouldn't be making these decisions in Washington for screeners in Wichita.
Re:Of course. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have a link to either of those groups turning kids into suicide bombers?
Specifically suicide bomber outside of the immediate threat of their nation?
no? didn't think so.
Re:Exactly! I was saying that too! (Score:5, Insightful)
And I agree with you. The rest of you of the paranoia seems awfully troll-ish and they should be put away or on Xanax.
If someone wants to blow you or some place up, they will. Period. You're dead so get your affairs in order and stop waving guns and police forces and armies around. Niet. Gone. Nada mas.
Fortunately, terrorism is NOT the norm. People don't really want to blow themselves up until they feel they're backed into a corner and have nothing else to live for. So, try a little empathy first. It would go a long way toward ensuring a safer, happier humanity instead of this "Well I carry a gun everywhere because it's better me than him." Are you fucking retarded? Try understanding why someone might flip out and start shooting up a post office, for instance.
I'll give you a hint: It has to do with desperation and scarcity mentality. There are WAY more than enough resources to go around, and if we actually had a society that valued something besides money and had a more interconnected one that actually has sympathy for people's situations, we'd have a lot fewer anxious, crazy people walking around. You! Hey you! Yeah, the one who bought that pistol that you got a conceal-carry permit for. Yeah, and you tell your friends it's your Constitutional Right? Yeah you. You know, if you got more hugs as a child, or hadn't been bullied to death in grade school, or had a friendly network of confidants who positively support you, instead of all the toys in your house that keep you "entertained" I'll bet you wouldn't need to walk around thinking you're some sort of badass who's going to hold out at the Ok Corral when the bullets start flying in Nowheresville, Suburbia.
Good lord, I'm so sick of selfish asshats walking around talking about security. You're the dangerous ones. You ARE CRIMINALS ALREADY. You've committed crimes of blowing someone away, without judge or jury, thousands of times in your head. You've made it real in your mind, so your reality is that one day it will happen and you want to be ready for what you actually think is an inevitability.
This security thing is just another manifestation of that mentality, and at the top sits a sick fuck who beckons with a finger and thousands can die, sitting at a little desk feeling smug and superior that,"I know what's best for everyone else."
re: Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to respectfully disagree with your assertions here. It's a well thought out set of ideas you have, but I know too many people actively involved in the Ron Paul campaign to believe you're correct.
Ron Paul already *did* run for president in 2004 on the Libertarian party ticket. He's TRIED the "run as an independent" thing already. All that led to in '04 was dissent among the independents. I even recall Chuck Baldwin (Constitution party platform's running mate) urging all the independents to unite and stop bickering amongst themselves, even if that meant going with a Green party or a Libertarian party candidate instead of their own party. Few listened.... Looking back on all of it now, I really believe Bob Barr got involved in the campaign as a Libertarian simply to ensure it was fragmented. (Look at his past history.... CIA connections and all about "big government". Sure, he had a story about how he "saw the light" and changed -- but he essentially came out of nowhere, and proceeded to parrot all the press releases put out by "Campaign for Liberty" and Ron Paul. I was signed up on both mailing lists for a while, and I swear, EVERY time Ron Paul released something? Along came Bob Barr with his "Raising the Barr" newsletter the next day, with utter plagiarism of the Ron Paul letter.)
Specifically regarding the situation in Paul's district in Texas? I think you're reading too much into the situation there. Ron Paul inherited it. he didn't create it. So complaining that his district is full of people who make a living from government jobs is hardly a failing on his part. At absolute best, all one can do to try to change that is to encourage the growth of new private businesses in the area, and hope the jobs they create will be lucrative enough to entice people away from their existing govt. employment. That is going to be a SLOW process that only changes things in the LONG haul.
I'm not from Texas myself, so I don't claim to know all the details of what's going on there with regard to new bus stops and what-not. But in general, public transportation is ALWAYS a money losing proposition. Our local bus system is NEVER profitable, nor is our light rail system here in St. Louis, Missouri. In a "perfect world", all of it would be eliminated if it can't make a profit and replaced with profitable alternatives that were NOT govt. funded at all. But again, all of this requires baby steps.... If the bus system ensures some people can maintain gainful employment as housekeepers, and that in turn reduces expenses for some of the folks paying the taxes that pay for the bus system? That's not the worst situation one could have.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
She was doing what all responsible people teach their children to do. Scream and run away if a stranger tries to touch you or take you away.
The child CORRECTLY determined that the TSA people seemed to be creepy and harmful.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo!!
Back when there was the whole mess with Hurricane Katrina, everyone wanted the higher ups in government to have more responsibility and accountability when disasters happened.
But the REAL answer is that the folks on the front lines during a disaster need to be given the authority to do what needs to be done.
More stringent guidelines and procedures does not work.
Re:Little brat (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're so scared of terrorists, never leave your house. There is no right to feel safe at the expense of everyone's freedom and privacy. Not only that, but increased cockpit security and civilian awareness of the consequences of plane hijackings is more than enough.
This is so right on point it bears repeating.
So many TSA supporters say, "If you don't like having your rights violated, then don't fly. Travel is not a right." I think a decent response is, as you said, "If you are so terrified of being killed in a terrorist attack, then don't fly. Travel is not a right."
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation please? According to Wikipedia, the only terrorist group to employ this tactic is Hamas, even though Israeli security does screen women -- which rather invalidates the theory.
Israeli security uses racism [politicsdaily.com] which sounds like a better system than what we're using.
Look like a terrorist? Get a pat down. Look like a four yr old blonde blue eyed girl hugging grandma? No pat down
Mark me troll and flamebait all you want, but every time the TSA pat downs a little blonde girl the terrorist win again. They're using our morality against racism against us.
Re:Of course. (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone feels up my daughter and I will be ok with the prison time that comes for beating a TSA thug to death.
Someone however makes your daughter cry by patting her down because her psychotic father has demonstrated so little control that he can't be trusted not to try and hide weapons on here, and you'll kill them for doing their job?
Pass my commiserations on to your daughter. I hope she manages to escape you soon.
Re:Of course. (Score:4, Insightful)
On a 18 hour international flight, the equivalent of 360 scans.
A large dose spread out over time is less harmful than a medium dose all in one instant. No?
Also, I'm not concerned about a well-calibrated and maintained machine, operated by a competent engineer. I am fucking terrified of being told to stand in a machine that might be malfunctioning or dys-calibrated, or where the hourly government worker at the controls doesn't know what he's doing.
You can't read stories like this and then think that everything is going to work perfectly at the checkpoints. There is a long and cherished track record of stupidity in this business.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
To catch all the metallic plastic explosives she had on her?
Wait, that's not right... plastic explosives AREN'T metallic.
And your point is? I seriously don't give a fuck any more if some iditon wants to try to bomb a plane! It's simply better for our collective liberty and dignity to tolerate the occasional exploding plane than to tolerate the TSA! N one is going to hijack a plane any more with improvised weapons. Metal detectors are fine. The security checkpoints themselves are a far better target for a guy with a bomb than a plane would be - everything beyond metal detectors is just so fucking pointless!
Travel will never be 100% safe. Just fucking accept that fact and get on with life with some dignity!
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Is it plugged in?"
"Yes".
Two hours goes by, filled with troubleshooting and face-palming, clever and wily efforts to pinpoint an apparent phase of the moon issue, and some very inventive muted swearwords.
"Are you SURE it's plugged in?"
"Uh.... Oh.... Ooops."
"Sir, thank you for helping me realize this is my last day at this job."
We are all so damn terrified (actually... I think it's more that we're TOLD that we're all terrified; I really don't know anybody who actually is) that we're willing to overlook the most obvious truths. All we've done is make it so terrorist organizations can vacation in Bermuda since they no longer have to spend their frequent flier miles on suicide missions.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a daddy, no one touches my little girls there except a doctor for medical reason.
IF they do, they wind up on floor unconscious.
And if you feel it's okay for TSA to do such pat downs, how about teachers? neighbors? strangers? how about I pat down your wife....nice.
If it's not okay for citizens, it's not okay for the government who derives their power from the citizens.
Re:Of course. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
If fake cops don't finger-fuck our babies, then the terrorists win.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Their job is theater.
The TSA has never once prevented an attack. Not once.
What they were created for can never again happen in our skies.
They are an agency created from a knee jerk reaction by scared cows, that is now looking to ever expand its power like all other governmental agencies.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
You've foolishly fallen for the idea that this has anything to do at all with security. It got votes when it went in, and it costs a gazillion dollars of our money that the government gets to pay its friends who do the security work. Same with prisons. Same with just about everything. We're being fleeced by parasites who don't care if they kill the host.