What happens when you refuse to pose for TSA or be sexually molested to fly.

Status
Not open for further replies.
They do.

The smaller, single-terminal airports generally have no scanners, but I've seen the grope-downs occurring at said airports.
 
Funny how every TSA agent and other airport security I have ever encountered has treated me with courtesy, even during peak boarding times.
I don't live in the US, so I get spared some of the circus. Let me tell you an experience I made:

Some four years ago, I was a chaperone for a group of teenagers returning home after having lived in the US for a year. We flew from Chicago to Munich, it was a groupd of about 70 people. I took them through security in three smaller groups, always carrying my cabin baggage through and so on. The first time I went through, nothing happened and along I went.
The second time, the screener called "TSA, TSA!" after my backpack had gone through the x-ray. Another screener came and we went to a slightly calmer section of the screening area, still in plain sight of everyone. He asked me whether it was OK to open the backpack, I replied that it certainly was and, since on an earlier, similar occasion in Germany I had been told to open my backpack, proceeded to open it for the screener. He nearly yelled at me "DON'T TOUCH IT!" opened it himself, rummaged through my personal belongings and found the object in question - his reaction: a completely flabbergasted "It's just a metal pen!"
Third time, different screeners again, my backpack with exactly the same things in it attracted attention again. Knowing the drill by now, I went with another extra screener - whom they had been able to summon discretely this time - let him open my baggage and this time, the TSA was interested in a metal coffee mug that I'd bought as a souvenir. The gentleman, courteous and polite the entire time, told me to enjoy my coffee and wished me a good flight.
After I'd cleared security for the final time, a female Chicago cop watching the area approached me and, just like a friendly neighbour that asks you how you're doing, inquired about my group, where we were going, how things were going and so on. During that short chat, she got more information out of me - not that I was unwilling to gove it to her - than any of the TSA personnel could ever have gathered.

People matter the most. Not their luggage. The inconsistency that I've just described, the many tales of completely unacceptable TSA agent behaviour and the lack of accountability inside the agency have made me agree with most of the verbal fire that it draws.
 
They picked you out because you were among a ton of teenagers and you are freaking crazy for being a chaperon. :eek: :p
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...avelers-program/2011/03/15/ABoOtxa_story.html

Treating every airport passenger as a potential terrorist slows the security system, is needlessly frustrating and deters some people from flying, according to a report that recommends ways to ease bottlenecks at security checkpoints.

The report, commissioned by the U.S. Travel Association and set to be released Wednesday, calls on airlines to allow passengers to check one bag free of charge and urges the creation of a voluntary ?trusted travelers? program that partially resembles a mandatory one previously proposed by President George W. Bush ? and shot down by Congress.

The furor last fall over new and invasive screening techniques by the Transportation Security Administration, and an avalanche of carry-on bags adding to airport lines, have ratcheted up pressure for change both in Congress and the travel industry.

The federal government would not need congressional approval to mandate that airlines allow one checked bag free. But it is doubtful that the TSA could implement a trusted-traveler initiative without congressional approval.

Adding impetus to the report is the heavyweight panel behind it, headed by Tom Ridge , former secretary of homeland security, and former congressman Jim Turner (D-Tex.), who was on the House Homeland Security Committee.

Travel industry analysts think the long-awaited report will continue the debate over screening procedures and add another element to it: Even a voluntary trusted-traveler approach would require passengers to provide credit information, tax returns and other personal data to verify that members pose little or no risk. In return, they would be allowed to zip through security.

The panel also said that airlines should be ordered to drop baggage fees that now
typically run from $20 to $100 per checked bag. Passengers carry on far more bags than ever to avoid those fees, creating even longer lines at TSA screening facilities.
Although TSA Administrator John S. Pistole would take issue with some of the panel?s findings, he has advocated moving away from a Maginot Line defense to a more nimble, risk-based approach. The report could help him deal with a risk-averse Congress.
?Pistole has outlined his vision for the future of airport security screening: one that is more risk-based and intelligence-driven, shifting away from a one-size-fits-all approach at checkpoints,? said TSA spokesman Nicholas Kimball. ?We welcome dialogue with stakeholders and the traveling public as the process moves forward.?

Frustration at new TSA policies boiled over last fall, drawing condemnation from a vocal minority of fliers and some members of Congress, who objected to the full-body scanners and pat-downs.

The proposal of a trusted-traveler program takes the debate through a thicket, pitting the right to privacy against the goal of secure flight. Congress rejected a Bush administration plan known as CAPPS II that would have tapped into credit information to verify passenger credentials.

?The key difference is that the program we?re recommending is totally voluntary,? said Geoff Freeman, executive vice president of the U.S. Travel Association, which commissioned the study a year ago. ?Travelers, and especially frequent fliers, would give their right arm for a different experience.?

The report recommends a voluntary trusted-traveler program in which passengers would supply fingerprints and other personal information in return for an identification card that would allow them to bypass security lines.


Members would enter a kiosk where either fingerprint or iris scanning technology would be used to confirm their identity.
Both the passenger and carry-on bags would pass through an explosives-detection device, but there would be no requirement to remove shoes, coats or hats.

Freeman said that his association, which represents airlines, airports and virtually every aspect of the travel industry, isn?t ?weak on security.?
?Nothing could be further from the truth,? he said. ?Smarter security will actually create a safer system. No industry pays a heavier price than we do when something goes wrong.?

The study portrays airport security as inefficient, invasive and expensive.
?Some in Congress appear to have calculated that there are no political consequences to an in?efficient and costly system but great political consequences to a successful terrorist attack,? the report says. ?This is a classic Hobson?s choice that the American traveling public repudiates.?


The desire to debunk that political calculation runs throughout the report and is consistent with what Pistole and anti-terrorism experts have contended.
Even as his agency has adjusted its tactics to counter each new terrorist threat, Pistole has expressed views similar to some key points made by the panel.

In a keynote speech to the American Bar Association two weeks ago, Pistole said it was time to ?streamline? the checkpoint process for most passengers.
?The vast majority of the 628 million [passengers who pass through TSA checkpoints each year] present little to no risk of committing an act of terrorism,? Pistole said. ?My vision is to accelerate TSA?s evolution into a truly risk-based, intelligence-driven organization in every way. .?.?. We want to focus our limited resources on higher-risk passengers while speeding and enhancing the passenger experience at the airport.?
Although Pistole said he would support the use of personal data if Congress authorized his agency to access it or if passengers volunteered it, he?s cautious about creating a program that might give cardholders carte blanche to waltz through security.

The Travel Association study also says that the often criticized TSA security workforce should receive more training, particularly in detecting suspicious behavior by passengers.
Freeman said the will to make the system more flexible has to originate with Congress.
?Because TSA is always going to be subject to criticism from Congress, they?re always going to take the one-size-fits-all approach to security,? he said. ?TSA may think that some of these are very fine ideas, but they are in a political hot seat. Nothing will happen until Congress changes the tone of the debate. Congress has to accept responsibility for risk management.?
So you would have to pick between the nut-groping and breast-fondling or opening up your entire financial life and biometric data to TSA. This "intelligence-based" approach sounds good until you look at the context of Pistole's sound-bites and realize that he wants to turn TSA into a domestic and international intelligence agency - CIA and NSA all rolled into one and directed at the American people. Of course you could "voluntarily" let TSA fingerprint, retinal scan you and dive into your financial history to get around a broken system. It's totally legal because it's a voluntary program that would be propelled along by making the alternative so invasive and odious that people will do whatever you ask so they can get home to see their family or make that important meeting.

TSA creates a problem
TSA offers a solution to the problem they created to get around the fact they can't mandate people to do what they want.

Essentially they are creating a domestic passport system to use the primary means of travel.

Pavlov and Skinner would be so proud.
 
I thought they already did this? It doesn't matter to me, I refuse to fly. When I go overseas I will take a slow boat.
 
They picked you out because you were among a ton of teenagers and you are freaking crazy for being a chaperon. :eek: :p
They were well-behaved teenagers. The only time I was alone with them was on the plane, where they couldn't get lost. It was fun and the free return trip to the US was very nice as well. ;-)

edit: I should probably add that the purpose of me accompanying them had very little to do with what wikipedia says about chaperones:

the specific intent of preventing inappropriate social or sexual interactions or illegal behavior
:lol:
 
Last edited:
So you would have to pick between the nut-groping and breast-fondling or opening up your entire financial life and biometric data to TSA. This "intelligence-based" approach sounds good until you look at the context of Pistole's sound-bites and realize that he wants to turn TSA into a domestic and international intelligence agency - CIA and NSA all rolled into one and directed at the American people. Of course you could "voluntarily" let TSA fingerprint, retinal scan you and dive into your financial history to get around a broken system. It's totally legal because it's a voluntary program that would be propelled along by making the alternative so invasive and odious that people will do whatever you ask so they can get home to see their family or make that important meeting.
Or, in my case, make it to the hospital to treat my rare illness. Yes, my life literally depends on flying, and I risk behind molested or porno-scanned for it every time. That's why I'm so angry about this whole situation, because I can't just choose not to fly.

It's as if they think they need to violate at least one civil right to feel like they're doing their job. If it's not the right against unreasonable search, it's the right to privacy.

Again, how plainly arrogant and stupid do you have to be to look at a system that has been proven to work (Israeli) with minimal rights violations and then decide, "no, we'll do something completely different based on lousy guesswork."? Because, no, we can't do profiling, it's ... *GASP* ... politically incorrect!
 
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/...arrested_in_theft_of_cash_from_travelers.html

TSA Agent caught stealing from passengers. No this is not a repeat.

A former Transportation Security Administration employee is facing a federal embezzling charge for allegedly stealing money from a traveler's wallet at a passenger checkpoint at the Kona airport.

TSA officials arrested Dawn Nikole Keka on Friday. She was a lead transportation security officer at Kona Airport.

Keka resigned from her job Monday, said TSA spokesman Nico Melendez.

The TSA said it conducted a sting operation targeting Keka in response to numerous allegations that she was stealing cash from Japanese travelers passing through her screening lane.

According to a criminal complaint filed in federal court yesterday, a TSA special agent posing as a Japanese tourist went through Keka's lane with 13 marked $100 bills in her wallet. The agent placed the wallet in a Hello Kitty backpack.

After the backpack went through the X-ray machine, the TSA said, Keka searched it with her back to the agent, discarded a bottle of liquid from the backpack and asked the "tourist" whether she is Japanese. The undercover agent nodded yes.

Keka then put the backpack through the X-ray machine a second time. A special agent with the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General said he saw Keka walk to the middle of the screening area and lean against a wall near the X-ray machine. When the undercover agent got the backpack, she discovered two $100 bills missing from the wallet.

TSA agents arrested Keka and found the two missing bills crumpled in her right back pocket. They also found four other crumpled bills in her front pocket: two $100s, a $20 and a $10.

When TSA officials released Keka, she stood up and said, "I made a bad decision. I just made a bad decision," according to the criminal complaint.

The arrest came a week after the TSA disclosed it was investigating some of its security officers for allegedly failing to screen checked-in baggage for explosives, as their jobs require.

Melendez said he could not confirm the number of officers being investigated. A source close to the investigation said at least 27 officers are involved. The TSA employs about 750 people in Hawaii.
And it's in Hawaii, one of the states where options to move around the state and the country are essentially limited to air travel.

And here's a beauty, TSA apparently doesn't want to talk to Congress..... again. This time they just decided not to show up.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/...-skips-scanners-hearing/?mod=google_news_blog

TSA, Republicans Spar As Agency Skips Scanners Hearing

The rift between the House Oversight Committee and the Obama administration is growing over the refusal of government officials to appear at hearings.

In the latest flare-up, the Transportation Security Administration has decided not to send two administrators to a hearing this morning about the TSA?s use of full-body scanners.

Academics and activists invited to testify at the hearing are expected to argue that the scanners are ineffective and contain a greater radiation risk than previously reported. Jason Chaffetz,the Utah Republican chairing the hearing, is a vocal opponent of the scanners, which he has previously described as pornographic.

The agency had agreed to send employees to testify before it learned that they would have to sit on a panel with the other witnesses, and not one just for government officials
, according to oversight committee staff.

TSA confirmed that the agency had told committee staff that it did not want its employees to testify on panels with non-government witnesses as a matter of policy, and added that in this case, it had ?serious concerns? because it was involved in legal action brought by another witness scheduled to appear, Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. The officials have submitted written testimony.

?It is customary for federal government witnesses to appear on government-only panels in order to allow for a thoughtful, direct and frank conversation between the witnesses and the committee members,? said spokeswoman Kristin Lee. ?TSA would welcome the opportunity to have the agency officials testify in a forum that does not seat agency officials with opposing litigants.?
Ali Ahmad, a spokesman for the committee, said TSA?s decision was ?disappointing? and added that the specific merits of the lawsuit were not at issue in the hearing.

Other agencies have also clashed with the committee over their insistence that employees do not sit with witnesses from outside groups. The Environmental Protection Agency turned down a request to come to a hearing about the impact of regulations on that basis, prompting angry comments from Republicans. Daniel Werfel, controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management, was grilled last Friday over the Office of Management and Budget?s insistence that he sit on a separate panel and appear only after all the other witnesses had finished testifying in a hearing on government transparency.

OMB says that a policy to keep officials off panels with outside groups has applied in Republican and Democratic administrations, and that its employees regularly testify when the policy is accommodated.

Some agencies have opted not to demand that treatment. The deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sat and testified with witnesses from businesses and thinktanks at another oversight hearing Tuesday afternoon.
 
Last edited:
A former Transportation Security Administration employee is facing a federal embezzling charge for allegedly stealing money from a traveler's wallet at a passenger checkpoint at the Kona airport.
Like I said: poor training, low pay and overinflated sense of authority for make-work jobs.

What sort of people do you expect to attract to a position like that?

?TSA would welcome the opportunity to have the agency officials testify in a forum that does not seat agency officials with opposing litigants.?
"We want no chance of any credible person exposing our flimsy and baseless stances".

How mature of them :rolleyes:
 
So they're basically very good at finding cash, but fail to find explosives?
 
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/17768.html

New TSA screening policies ineffective, possibly counterproductive, IU expert tells Congress


The Transportation Security Administration's adoption of whole-body imaging as part of airport screenings has proven ineffective and potentially counterproductive, an IU Maurer School of Law expert said in testimony before a House subcommittee.

"Even if advanced imaging technologies (AITs) were living up to their technological potential, their potential is clearly limited," Professor Fred H. Cate said on March 16 in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform -- Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations.

"AITs do not detect explosives. They do not detect firearms. They do not distinguish dangerous from ordinary materials. All they are technologically capable of doing is calling attention to 'anomalies' on the person of the traveler."

Cate, who also directs Indiana University's Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research, explained that anomalies generate numerous false positives. "A piece of tissue, a dollar bill, a boarding pass, a piece of candy -- all are 'anomalies' in the world of AITs, and all must be 'cleared' by TSA agents. These false positives divert agents' attention from real risks while focusing their attention on innocuous anomalies."

But many anomalies cannot be cleared by TSA agents given the time and resources available to them. Cate provided a recent example from his own experience. "Just last week at Washington National Airport, the AIT discovered a loose aspirin in my shirt pocket," he said. "The agent patted me down and asked me what was in my pocket. When I told him it was aspirin, he politely waved me through. But the aspirin could just as easily have been potassium cyanide."

"We have spent $2 billion installing technology to identify anomalies that we cannot evaluate for the risks they pose," Cate continued. "This inability to clear false positives has led to the TSA's disastrous policy of intimate, intrusive searches. And despite their intimacy, the searches are not linked to a process for determining whether the anomaly is a real risk or a false positive."

Cate also testified that AITs cannot keep up with the ever-changing strategies of terrorists. "AITs were deployed in the U.S. to deal specifically with the so-called underwear bomber on Christmas Day 2009," he observed. "We are literally spending billions fighting yesterday's threats on the assumption that terrorists are neither smart nor innovative. Unfortunately, they are both."

Rather than focusing on backward-looking technology and burdensome procedures, Cate suggested that the TSA must be clearer about its mission. "If TSA's mission is to prevent airplanes from being turned into weapons, that mission has been accomplished," he said. "If the TSA is now targeting hijacking or destruction of airplanes, we should remember that the U.S. and many other nations have waged that battle for more than 30 years with great success -- and without AITs, pat-downs, and other showy procedures that have become known as 'security theater.' Massive expenditures targeting ineffective tools do little to advance security and ignore the far more real dangers that air travel involves."

Cate also told the committee that Congress should require the TSA to follow basic requirements for evaluating the effectiveness of AITs and all its other initiatives. He outlined a 12-point framework recommended by the National Academy of Sciences in 2008 for all security programs relying on personal data or searches.

"The TSA appears to have avoided most of these steps," Cate said. "Following these simple steps, which are widely followed in both the public and private sectors, could have avoided many of the agency's missteps during the past several months."

Fred H. Cate is a Distinguished Professor, C. Ben Dutton Professor of Law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law; adjunct professor of Informatics and Computing; and director of the Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research at Indiana University. He is also a director of the Center for Law, Ethics, and Applied Research (CLEAR) in Health Information at Indiana University. Cate works at the forefront of privacy, security, and other information law and policy issues. He is available to comment on his testimony and on other security matters, and can be reached at 812-855-1161, or at fcate@indiana.edu.
http://thehill.com/blogs/transporta...ama-gop-calls-tsa-scanners-thoroughly-useless

TSA scanners 'thoroughly useless'

Republicans on a House subcommittee on Wednesday lambasted body scanners and pat-downs used by the Transportation Security Administration.

"The equipment is flawed and can be subverted," House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) said. "Our staff has subverted it. (TSA Administrator) Pistole said 'GAO is very clever.' Well what the hell does he think a terrorist is?"

Additionally, it is not very hard to know where to place contraband you do not want to be found in the event of a TSA pat-down, Mica said.

"Most folks know they're not going to touch your junk," Mica said.
After receiving withering criticism from lawmakers earlier in the day for not wanting to share a panel with other witnesses, TSA officials defended their technology Wednesday.

"The technology is vital to our ability to keep airline passengers safe in a post-9/11 world," TSA Assistant Administrator for Security Technology Robin Kane told the panel after a testy debate about rescheduling the agency's testimony.

"Mr. Chairman, the threat is everywhere," Kane continued. "Our security measures must focus on the threat of tomorrow, not the threat of yesterday."

The panel appeared unconvinced. Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) compared the pat-downs now being used as part of airport security screening measures to sexual assault.

"There are many of us who believe this would be deemed a sexual assault on a person," he said.


Chaffetz said TSA was too willing to use new technologies, when they could instead use things like bomb-sniffing dogs.

"Sometimes there's nothing like a good old-fashioned German shepherd," he said. "We've lulled ourselves into a false sense of security that these machines are safe; that they work."

Earlier in the meeting, some members of the panel said the scans were ineffective because every passenger was not examined. Former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Policy Stewart Baker defended the randomization, saying that knowing a scan was possible acted as a deterrent for would-be terrorists.

"People are willing to blow themselves up and you think they're worried about getting caught," House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) responded incredulously.


Baker said that threat is why TSA had to act aggressively.

"We cannot start this conversation with what we'd like TSA to do. We have to start with what Al Qaeda would like to do. We know Al Qaeda wants to blow up planes," he said.

Even that did not sway Issa, however.

"This committee has serious doubts about the effectiveness, efficiency and authority of some of the things that you are doing," Issa said. "I was there on 9/11. I remember listening to President Bush say that it wouldn't change America, but I'm afraid that it has."
My brother is in the Army and has seen the intelligence coming out of Afghanistan, Pakistan and other areas controlled by Al Quaeda; they aren't even thinking about planes anymore, they are on to other soft targets. He couldn't tell me anything else, but he assured me that there are other areas that are easier to get to and cause more damage than aircraft. The main reason for this isn't security, it's the fact that passengers will no longer sit quietly and allow themselves to be hijacked.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why the Obama administration is sitting on their hands. They are looking no better than Bush and co. in most areas. When do our protests start?
 
Expert: Tsa Scanners May Cause 100 Cancer Cases A Year

If the rallying cry of outraged air travelers last fall was "Don't Touch My Junk," a simpler and softer call has risen from an Alaska state representative and breast cancer survivor.

"No."

It's a powerful word, Sharon Cissna told a Congressional subcommittee yesterday. And each time she said it to a growing circle of TSA agents, airport workers and police in Seattle last month, she felt more confident.

"No," the Democrat from Anchorage recalled saying, "I will not be physically touched. I will leave the airport. There will be another way to return to the state house in Juneau."

She used the word horror to describe what had happened in November, when she was returning from surgery and her prosthetic breast triggered a whole-body imaging machine alarm. She likened the pat-down she received as a "feeling up."

As a girl she'd been touched inappropriately, she told the panel, and as a mental health counselor since 1962 she's tended victims of abuse.

So when she learned that to get on the plane last month she'd have to undergo another pat-down, she refused. She left the airport, and traveled four days - by car, ferry and small plane - to get home.

Cissna provided the most emotional moments for the first morning of testimony that a House subcommittee has ordered in its probe of whole-body imaging machines.

The drama was provided by the jockeying between Democrats and Republicans over whether officials from the Transportation Security Administration would get to testify.

TSA officials objected Monday to having to sit next to the head of a privacy group that has sued the agency five times. Democrats were more sympathetic to the TSA's discomfort.

Mid-way through the hearing the TSA agreed to send two officials to answer questions, but with 45 minutes left before the room was needed by another panel, subcommittee chairman Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah, announced the TSA would have to come another day.

There was much pointed testimony during a discussion of the scanners' health and effectiveness.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said his group is battling the TSA to see 2,000 images of passengers' bodies it believes the agency has kept, contending the machines can store these sensitive pictures when set in a 'training' mode. The TSA has denied that the machines save such images.

David Brenner, a Columbia University expert in radiation biology, estimated that if the TSA gets to roll out as many x-ray machines as planned, the exposure to radiation could cause 100 cases of cancer a year.


Why, he asked, would we take that risk when equally effective machine send out radio waves pose no known risk?

Money, answered Stewart Baker, a former policy chief for the Department of Homeland Security. Since only one company provides the x-ray machines, he said, the price would surely escalate.


None of the panelists said that the new technology, which will ultimately cost about $500 million, would have caught the liquid explosives hidden in the underpants of the so-called Christmas Day bomber, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound plane in 2009.

The whole-body scanners aren't perfect, but they are the best technology yet, Baker said. He said dogs might be better detectors of explosives, but every half hour they need to go out and play.

Since Cissna's decision to never go through a whole-body imager again, she has heard from 28 persons who've made that same pledge.

To that list add Michael Rowan, a property manager from Pennsville, N.J. who has three daughters. "What father would put his child in a position to be humiliated and sexually abused," he told me. Next month take his daughters to Orlando to see their grandmother by car.

To testify yesterday, Cissna had to fly from Anchorage, but since that airport doesn't use whole-body imaging she was comfortable.

The way home was another matter. Her husband researched which East Coast airports don't use the more revealing technology, or make those who set off alarms endure more invasive pat-downs.

They decided to fly out of New York State, which will require a train and bus to the plane, a two-day trip.

Apologizing for her words, she told me, "I'm never going to be felt up again."
Cliff's notes:

1. Scanners could cause 100 cancer cases a year
Cancer, which is seeming about as likely as being a victim of an airplane hijacking, will make you just as dead (and cause considerably more pain along the way), so ... what's the point?

2. Why aren't we using the harmless radio-wave scanners instead?
Because it costs more money and because Michael Chertoff cut a deal with the company that makes the x-ray scanners so that he could get a lucrative revolving-door job after his position in government.

3. What about bomb-sniffing dogs?
Hurrrrrrrr dey need to play like evry haff hour durrrrrrrrrr! I don't think this man has ever owned seen a dog in his entire life.


They are looking no better than Bush and co. in most areas.
You sound surprised. Did you actually buy into that whole "change" thing?

All politicians are scum. Every. Last. One. Of. Them.

Positions of power not only attract self-absorbed douchebags, they create them. (disclaimer: yes, that is a comedy site, but they do write factual comedy and cite their sources)

That's why it takes a direct affect for them to budge their finger an inch and actually do something in the interest of their constituents.
 
You sound surprised. Did you actually buy into that whole "change" thing?

All politicians are scum. Every. Last. One. Of. Them.

I was just hoping that they weren't Bush and co. light, and that is exactly what they have turned into.
 
I don't understand why the Obama administration is sitting on their hands. They are looking no better than Bush and co. in most areas. When do our protests start?
when the TV stops broadcasting
when you run out of fast food
when the internet is switched off
 
Would this secruity BS actually stop a proper thought out attack? if someone really wanted to bomb an airport or plane I bet they could and they wouldnt be using the "waltz through the departure terminal security point with a bag full of play-doh hoping no one will notice" technique.
 
Would this secruity BS actually stop a proper thought out attack?
No. That's one of the main problems with it.

Speaking of which...

TSA flunks another knife-and-death test

Bungling TSA screeners allowed yet another security breach at a New York-area airport when a mom was able to breeze through security with a steak knife meant to carve up her kid's apple, sources said yesterday.

Despite pat-downs and X-ray scanners, the weapon got past the supposedly eagle eyes of the TSA at Newark Airport, and was revealed only by the woman herself, when she discovered it and sheepishly told JetBlue workers.

Evelyn Freay, 37, of Miami Lakes, Fla., was shocked when she found the blade inside her 1-year-old son's carriage. She told agents she had no idea her mom had stowed it there with some fruit for the flight home.

"I'm sorry, my mom put it in there with an apple for the baby," she told TSA agents, according to a source.

Freay was not charged with any crime, but the knife was seized and she was eventually allowed to book another flight.

A spokeswoman for the TSA said that the agency was reviewing the security breach.

The incident was the latest in a series of disturbing blunders that have plagued the agency.

On Feb. 26, Eusebio D. Peraltalajara, 45, a factory worker from Jersey City, tried to get on a JFK flight to the Dominican Republic with three boxcutters similar to the kind used to hijack airplanes in the 9/11 terror attacks, sources said.

Peraltalajara meant no harm, but his potential weapons got through screening and were discovered only when they fell out of his bag as he tried to load it into an overhead bin on a plane.

The TSA said that two agents and a supervisor would be disciplined for their role in that breach.

Two days earlier, a 30-year-old Maryland man with psychiatric problems was allegedly able to go through security at JFK Airport with a stolen boarding pass and board a plane.

Ronald Wong managed to get through the boarding-pass check at the start of the security line, and then passed the TSA screening without further challenge. He was caught only when airline employees discovered there was no seat for him on the plane.

He's been charged by the feds with willfully entering an aircraft or airport in violation of security requirements, a misdemeanor. He was held yesterday without bail pending a psych hearing.

In addition to those incidents, a series of five recent breaches at Newark Airport led to a visit last month by a TSA senior official, who gave agents a stern talk and warned them to be vigilant.

Among the breaches that led to the high-level visit were a dead dog being allowed on a plane even though its carcass had not been checked for contraband or disease.

I don't get why she didn't just close her bag up, leave it there and forget about it. Was she scared that she might suddenly become a raging lunatic wanting to take over the plane?

if someone really wanted to bomb an airport or plane I bet they could and they wouldnt be using the "waltz through the departure terminal security point with a bag full of play-doh hoping no one will notice" technique.
That's exactly it. For someone with the goal of maiming and killing as many people as possible, what is a more attractive target: a few hundred people on a plane or a few thousand people people bunched up by the gates waiting to get felt up by the government?
 
Last edited:
Exactly, and terrorists have already figured this out and executed a successful attack on the terminal building itself.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/926979--terror-attack-at-russian-airport-kills-35

And, so, as Russia lay in ruins, they wasted several years and millions of dollars making an embarrassing flub of the attack site as various political minds selfishly tried to use it for personal gain. They continued on to destroy their economy, remove their citizens rights in the name of "national security" and--

Oh, wait... they grieved, picked up the pieces and moved on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top