Mother Found Guilty After Protesting TSA Pat-down of Daughter 652
Penurious Penguin writes "In 2011, en route to Baltimore, Tennessee mother Andrea Abbott was arrested after squabbling with the TSA over their pat-down and "naked" body-scan process. Initially Abbott had protested a pat-down of her 14 year-old daughter, though eventually backed off. When her own turn came, she refused both a pat-down and body-scan. This week, despite having no criminal record, Abbott was found guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced to one year of probation. A surveillance video of the affair shows what appears an agitated Abbott surrounded by various TSA agents, but seemingly contradicts the premise by which she was convicted. In the case against Abbott it was claimed that her behavior impeded the flow security-lines and lawful activity. Beyond Abbott's confession of issuing some verbal abuse, the video does not appear to display a significant blockage of traffic nor anything noticeably criminal."
Guilty of not doing as she was told. (Score:5, Insightful)
Scum like that should be executed!
Re:Guilty of not doing as she was told. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Guilty of not doing as she was told. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just vote Repubmocrat for more of the same treatment. The longer the TSA operates, the longer they have to refine authoritarian tyranny.
I wish (Score:5, Interesting)
Did Obama order DHS to comply with the court order requiring the TSA to publish various statistics that'd make the nuddy scanners look bad? No
Anyways, you should always refuse the nuddy scanner and accept the pat down instead, if only for the radiation hazard.
Re:I wish (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, you have two options. Which one is healthier for you?
A) Taking more bleach, in an even smaller quantity.
B} _NOT_ taking more bleach.
Re:I wish (Score:5, Funny)
That's fine, if you want to sidestep the analogy with pedanticism, substitute bleach with potassium cyanide, or lye, or motor oil. Hell, substitute it with ionizing radia... oh, wait.
Re:I wish (Score:5, Insightful)
That's certainly what RapiScan and the TSA officials stated, but they never published what the numbers really were. They just assured us.
I'm not big on going all tin-foil on this. Many of us have been wondering why they insist on not publishing what the measured/actual radiation exposure is. The concerns have been raised as reports came out (some dubious) that TSA agents were already showing higher than normal incident rates for cancers. There was an incident where an inspection turned up unusually high readings. Granted, that also turned out to be a clerical issue where the inspector didn't understand part of the inspection... Which was a concern in itself. Through all this, we still don't know what the exposure is supposed to be, nor what it really is.
The problem here has been a lack of transparency... and other abuses involving the millimeter wave scanner horror stories (storing images, having ladies go through multiple times). Worse is that these "measures" are invasive, possibly a health risk, and they don't actually increase our security. There are plenty of videos out there on how to beat the scanners, the measures irritate us and end up (in my opinion) more complacent.
As for the passive scanners, that would be great. I need to see where they are in development because I haven't heard anything on that yet. If you have a link, I'd appreciate it. I'll get going on Google in the meantime.
Re:I wish (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, not tinfoil, it's full lead foil territory.
If a doctor or dentist was operating such gear without a third party testing for emission levels they would go directly to jail.
Re:I wish (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wish (Score:4)
I thought I read that the extra radiation from being at airplane altitudes for an entire flight dwarfs the radiation from the scanner. They also make passive scanners that only use your body's natural radiation.
That may be true, but it is the cumulative effect of radiation that is the problem. So, yes, you may get a larger dose from something else, but that does not mean the dose from the scanner doesn't matter.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wish (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if the increased risk of cancer is miniscule, the risk of dying in a terrorist act is even more so. Almost certainly by at least one order of magnitude.
Re:I wish (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the risk of being killed in a terrorist act?
Taking these figures into account, a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. This compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/06/how-scared-of-terrorism-should [reason.com]
Vs. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer [cancer.org]
1 in 20 million vs even a .1% increase in the risk of cancer which at best is 1 in 5000
Re:I wish (Score:5, Insightful)
"... assuming that the radiation in a backscatter X-ray is about a hundredth the dose of a dental X-ray, we find that a backscatter X-ray increases the odds of dying from cancer by about 16 ten millionths of one percent. That suggests that for every billion passengers screened with backscatter radiation, about 16 will die from cancer as a result.
Given that there will be 600 million airplane passengers per year, that makes the machines deadlier than the terrorists."
Re:Guilty of not doing as she was told. (Score:5, Interesting)
This nonsense is why I have not flown since they started this. If enough did the same, the airlines would have to make changes to get customers again. Simply traveling and not putting up with this should not be a reason to have a criminal record.
I can deal with this as a "Requirement" to fly. I don't fly. Take a car, bus, or train. Don't go through any checkpoints. If you don't go to your destination because of TSA blocks, ask the venu to be changed.
This made a visit to a courthouse much easier recently when I had to drop off some records for the court. I did not go through security, but simply announced I was there just to drop off paperwork. I announced I had keys and a pocketknife and could not proceed past security, and had securiity call the person from their office to receive the paperwork. The paperwork cleared screening, I didn't need to.
More people should do this.
Re:Guilty of not doing as she was told. (Score:5, Interesting)
And seriously, trying to prevent there goons- I mean upstanding respectable employees, from copping a feel- I mean patting down an underaged girl- I mean a potential terrorist...
What is this world coming to?
Actually, what I found sad, is she spent more effort on preventing it herself than for her daughter.
Re:Guilty of not doing as she was told. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is this world coming to?
Fear and those who exploit it.
Re:Guilty of not doing as she was told. (Score:5, Funny)
No crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
She didn't want to be fondled by total strangers in public. There's your crime right there!
Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let this be a test case for the tweedledee and tweedledum, who wants the job at the White House so badly --- do they support a public fondl... [ahem] a pat down of a 14 year old American girl, in an American air port?
Re:Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't sake made from rice and not from children?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where do you think rice comes from?
If only Obama got into office he'd fix this all (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish Obama would be in some office where he could wield some executive power so he could show us how Democrats value freedom more...
(If I lived in the USA, I would probably vote for Obama as smaller of two evils... but it's not as if the security theater would be a partisan issue.)
Re:If only Obama got into office he'd fix this all (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If only Obama got into office he'd fix this all (Score:4, Insightful)
If I lived in the USA, I would probably vote for Obama as smaller of two evils...
And when the reckoning comes, you will be remembered as one who chose to support one of the evils rather to oppose both of them.
Re:If only Obama got into office he'd fix this all (Score:4)
It's not called "standing by your principles" when you only do it when there's no downside! If you always do what seems optimal for your future you have no principles.
Re:If only Obama got into office he'd fix this all (Score:5, Interesting)
And is the warm feeling of standing up for your principles when you know, at the current moment, it's a doomed effort worth increasing the chance the 'greater evil' will win?
Consider a purely hypothetical situation.
Imagine that there are no "greater" evil nor "lesser" evils. Instead, there are two factions which are *equally* evil, differing only in details. Say, for example, one boils kittens while the other fries puppies. What if those factions discovered a sweet setup, wherein they can get the people to consider any of them to be a "lesser" evil based on personal preferences and ensure their support by playing on fears of a "greater" evil winning? If a Knight in Shiny Armour would arise, promising to deliver the poor pets from their fate, he will get no traction. The dog-loving people would be afraid to support him, lest it leads to a victory of the puppy fryers; and, similarly, the cat-loving people's concern would be that the kitten boilers may prevail. All it would take is talking loudly about "splitting your vote", "throwing your vote away", etc. in the media, to doom all present and future KiShAs to irrelevancy.
Now let us add some "special interest" groups to the equation. E.g., the Kill All Baby Pets corporation, that can secure some benefits (legal or otherwise) when either "evil" faction is in power, Such groups will also strive to perpetuate the notion that your only options is to support the "lesser evil" -- for their own benefit, of course.
After concluding our little thought experiment, let me ask you this:
Should, entropy forbid, the people in power get wind of this idea and put it into practice, what will you do?
Come to think of it, what if the game is already on? Politics is a tough game and most top-level players are pretty smart and devious.
Still want to vote for the "lesser evil"?
Re:Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you examine the legislation and executive decisions responsible for the civil liberties abuses of the past 12 years, you will find strong bi-partisan consensus for these measures. You mention Romney, but when it comes to the expansion and abuse of executive power, President Obama has been even worse than Bush. Ask Obama about his secret kill list and "disposition matrix".
I'm not voting for Romney or Obama.
Re:Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? (Score:5, Insightful)
The choice between Democrat and Republican is not freedom, but a box to contain you.
Both support these measures.
Both support more spending on the War Department (I refuse to call it by its doublethink name.)
Both oppose ending marijuana prohibition.
Both endorsed and passed the NDAA.
Both support the TSA's existence.
So which one will you choose? It is no different than our ridiculous telecom oligopoly. Sure you can choose, between three equivalently shitty, abusive options.
Choosing between provided options is not freedom, it's multiple choice where no answer is freedom.
Obama Administration and abuse of power (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama is standing on the shoulders of giants. Funny that you say "expansion" and not creation. See, he is expanding what is already there. I'm not saying it's right, but that's fact. Our entire legal system is built on this principle.
REAL abuse of executive power is invading a soverign nation and overthrowing its government with no just cause, and in the process fabricating evidence to try and gain support for your actions. To this DAY there has never been a reasonable explanation for our invasion and occupation of Iraq. While Obama hasn't fixed the mess he inherited in our country, and may have made some things worse, what we do know is that the intent of his efforts were to try and improve things, and more importantly his policies have not directly led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and others around the world. That is where I see a massive difference between this and the former president.
Re:Obama Administration and abuse of power (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Romney & Obama - Do they support pat down? (Score:5, Insightful)
The chance to vote for the lesser of two evils is something many people around the world would kill for.
If you're in a swing state, a vote for a third party candidate is a vote in favor of Romney-appointed Supreme Court justices.
Re:No crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No crime? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rosa Parks: She went to the front of the bus. What did she think would happen if she refused to go to the back of the bus?
Lesson: Just because it's law, doesn't mean it's right; just because it's law, doesn't mean that complying with it is the best choice; just because it's law, doesn't mean that an intelligent citizen writes someone off for a strict violation.
Some laws are simply wrong and arise only by malfeasance of legislators and those that encourage them down wrongful paths. This is unquestionably one of those cases.
Re:No crime? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sigh. She went to the airport. What did she think would happen if she refused to use the scanners she knew were there?
Allow me to introduce you to the highest law of the United States, the law that governs the government itself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]
I know, it is not something we really care about in this day and age, but at one time the restrictions on the government that the constitution imposes were considered to be important. People had this notion that we could protect ourselves from tyranny, that the US was somehow going to be a better country than its predecessors, and so forth.
Oh well, enough of that, we need to decide which right-wing candidate to put into office (because voting for the left wing is a waste).
Not criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
the video does not appear to display a significant blockage of traffic nor anything noticeably criminal.
She was defying the TSA.
If they let her get away with it then pretty soon other people would be defying them, too. All protesters must be stamped on, hard.
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're the ones who made all that shit up.
Seriously. Man in cavern in middle east. Has rusty Rifle.
Response: billions of dollars in (crony built) weapons. Crazy laws outlawing all manner of protest and enforced by (crony built) equipment and forces.
You lost before you knew you were playing.
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, but remember that whiskey kills more people than terrorism. We rejected prohibition, for the same reason that we should reject the so-called "War on Terrorism". In the hands of our government, the cure turns out to be worse than the disease.
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
You forget it is also the home of the brave. Where 'brave' means so scared of the extremely remote chance you might be the victim of terrorism that they gladly give up their freedoms.
Land of the oppressed, home of the cowards.
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Funny)
One would think that in the land of the free those kind of shenanigans would only provoke a stronger response from the populace..
It's OK, as long as everyone has a gun they will prevent the government from overstepping its bounds.
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
One would think that in the land of the free those kind of shenanigans would only provoke a stronger response from the populace..
Normally these acts would have people screaming, calling police, lawyers, etc.
But ... the government knows that most people with a 'plane to catch will choose 20 seconds of utter humiliation over a 30-minute confrontation with big brother.
If the people got their act together and organized themselves the TSA would be shut down in a week. Unfortunately most of them have already set up the cognitive dissonances that the government planned for them.
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You should have them clean the airport toilets and floors. Would be usefull, and would promote tourism instead of scaring the people like me who would like to visit USA but won't because you have become damn scary in the past 10 years.
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Interesting)
The people did get together and organized themselves. The responded to 9/11 with a longterm deep boycott of the airlines until security improved and constant demands for more security. I think they were wrong. But don't kid yourself about which side had democratic support.
In terms of now there are regular hearings on this and the security side wins the debate whenever you poll.
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you haven't had your teenage daughter break down in tears because a TSA creep crossed the line.
Or maybe you have't seen a victim of past sexual abuse panic when she gets touched?
Or maybe you just lack empathy?
Re:Not criminal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
One would think that in the land of the free those kind of shenanigans would only provoke a stronger response from the populace..
They might, if more of said populace were still educated and had their eyes open to what's happening instead of sitting fat and happy in front of their sports programs.
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not criminal? (Score:4, Insightful)
...Or reading/posting to Slashdot about it. ;)
I'll actually go ahead and disagree with your message: talking about these issues, even if we don't do anything immediately, is trillions times better than just staying put and consuming some pop entertainment. We share among us our thoughts on what's wrong, what should and what shouldn't be, we educate each other on facts and events.
I cannot but look at this as a positive way to spend one's time.
Re:Not criminal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Look up bread and circuses
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
As an american, I strongly suggest that anyone from outside to not visit us. This is a Police State, we like tromping on freedoms here. and they treat non citizens WORSE than citizens.
Your money is better spent in a Free country like Canada.
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Informative)
No fuckhead, this is not a police state. Having worked wtih US LE, the US is not a police state, even int he worst of cases. The reason not to go to the US is the buggered up customs process, which takes 4 hours.
Yes it is a police state. And you want to know why ? Because organizations like the TSA have no, zero, zip, nada accountability. They can damn well do whatever they want, and the courts have approved them.
Take away your freedom to fly, to travel by train, by car etc... and sooner or later you'll find yourself in a prison. You're free to walk to your 60 mile distant workplace. You're free to walk to your mother's anniversary 1000 miles away on the other side of the country etc... The Soviets would have been proud of such a poiicy to restrict freedom without giving the illusion of taking freedom away.
Police can do whatever the fuck they want and they have zero accoutability. The goverment through its "national security letters" can do whatever it wants and it has zero accountability. The government can incarcerate you for indefinite times (and fuck the whole due process thing) and torture you and you have no recourse.
The government can accuse of anything preseting "secret" evidence (my my how the Soviets would have been proud) without disclosing it during the court proceedings.
Do you see a pattern emerging here dear citizen ? Arbitrariness, you are at the mercy of a machine that acts arbitrarily and has no accountability. All that talk about checks and balances in the government is shit. And the proof is right before your eyes.
So yes, the reason to never go to the US is because it has become in all but name a police state.
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Informative)
And you didn't even mention the most egregious police state set up: constitution-free zones manned by ICE and various other border agencies. California, for example, has nearly 100% of its population living there. Other states have 100% of the entire state covered by it. Fun times: http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map [aclu.org]
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Insightful)
No fuckhead, this is not a police state.
Yes, as we all know, a police state would be a country where:
Oh, wait, that would be the United States.
Re:Not criminal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Airport security by itself wouldn't stop me from travelling to the US, but there's so much more than that. There are plenty of countries that are "trusted" and so qualify for visa-free travel to the US for business or tourism - standard short stay stuff. Unfortunately, the list of requirements to qualify for that keeps growing. If you don't have a biometric passport containing details of retina patterns and fingerprints, matched against your passport on entry, you don't get to travel visa-free. The visa application process takes months and requires multiple visits in the flesh to a US embassy. Coincidentally, a passport application to update to a shiny new biometric passport also takes month and multiple visits in the flesh to a passport office.
Can anybody honestly say there's anything in the US that is so uniquely spectacular that it's worth all the hassle and paperwork? I can travel throughout the entire Schengen area with nothing more than a flash of an ID card. There are dozens of nations where a visa is just a bit of paper that you purchase on entry.
Re:Not criminal? (Score:4, Interesting)
> Can anybody honestly say there's anything in the US that is so uniquely spectacular
Delicate Arch in Arches National Park.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicate_Arch [wikipedia.org]
http://www.uilleann.org/Piperlink-Moab/Delicate-Arch-Trio.jpg [uilleann.org]
I'm Canadian and so I totally understand and sympathize with the desire to not go to the US, the world is a big place. (Although I think I'm excluded still from a lot of the shit the rest of you have to put up with)
But I've been a *lot* of spectacular places in the world, and Delicate Arch blew me away. The shape, the SIZE, the shaped ground-smooth rock and formations framing it, the bowl below it, it's isolated surrounded by canyons and hills.
Everyone in the world should see Delicate Arch.
( And while you're there, hit Canyonlands, Bryce, Grand Canyon, Mesa Verde, etc. Here's my trip plan in google maps (note two pages of itinerary to show the entire loop). http://goo.gl/maps/V6VfY [goo.gl] Took us 6 days to do the full circle and we skipped San Juan National Forest. You could easily spend 12 days doing the same route. )
Re:Not criminal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not criminal? (Score:4, Insightful)
My brother-in-law in Japanese, living in Japan. He had no problem visiting the US very recently. Yes, he had to give his fingerprint.. but is that really a big issue?
Yes it is. I'm old enough (57) that back in elementary and Jr High school one of the things that was drummed into us was that the USA was better than all those other wimpy countries because we had complete freedom to travel anonymously, had no personal ID papers, and could not be forced to identify ourselves unless under arrest. So it's a very big deal that these allegedly Constitutional rights have disappeared.
America... (Score:5, Insightful)
... Land of the Freedom to abuse
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Questioning the system will get you in trouble every time. It helps make sure that the cost of complaining or asserting your rights or asking for consideration or doing anything but keeping your head down and doing whatever you're told is too high compared to the (relatively) momentary discomfort and inconvenience. And it's pretty effective too. I know my rights- in encounters with the police, or when going through security at the airport - but when if a cop stopped me for no reason walking to the store (as frequently happens to my sister) and demanded to see my ID or search my bag....I can't say I wouldn't do exactly as she does and just go with it. I certainly do with the TSA's nonsense. The possibility of getting dragged off for some bullshit reason is a good threat. Even if it doesn't stick, it still sucked. You still endangered your job/vacation/whatever.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If billionaires were decent people... (Score:5, Insightful)
If billionaires are needed to get justice in the US, the problem isn't with the billionaires, its with the justice system.
Re:If billionaires were decent people... (Score:5, Informative)
...one of them would jump right up to fund fighting her case all the way to the Supreme Court. What the hell, lunch money.
But they won't of course, because you can't be a decent person and be a billionaire.
If you wait for the rich to step up and save you from the powerful, you're going to be waiting a long time.
There are other entities, though, that while ostracized for being 'Left', 'Socialist', etc. are actually willing to stand up for people's rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_rights_organizations_based_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re:If billionaires were decent people... (Score:4, Interesting)
Didn't RTFA (Score:3)
But WTF : In the case against Abbott it was claimed that her behavior impeded the flow security-lines and lawful activity.
Is that a crime? Seriously?!
Re:Didn't RTFA (Score:4, Funny)
rule 1 ) the person with the badge is always right
rule 2 ) if the person with the badge is wrong, see rule 1
usually this doesnt make it all the way through court, but this is completely true of any interaction on a personal level
Welcome into our times... (Score:4, Insightful)
What the government should do... (Score:3)
The government should set up an agency whose sole function is to prosecute people who object to the setting up of this agency.
"What a stupid idea!" I hear you say? You're another dangerous malcontent who must be investigated!
Don't question authority. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem was questioning authority. I'm a bit of an expert on this. I find when I start questioning authority, mainly in a loud, commanding voice, 1 of 2 things happens. Either they cave in because they are sheep. Or they get really butthurt and need to make an example of me. Authority does not like being questioned, mainly when they are doing fucked up shit that needs to be questioned.
Did she get out of line? Probably. Emotions get flaring, it's easy to get a bit overboard. But watching the video, it seems to me there was a point, when she could of just walked away, and instead she came back to argue, bitch, or whatever. It's possible she got edged on by something being said, it's possible she didn't. But there was a point there when she could of just left, like they were letting her do, and she didn't. I'm guessing that is why she didn't win her court case, because of that action there.
Re:Don't question authority. (Score:4, Interesting)
damn it, I should be in bed right now. I messed up here.
Questioning authority is good, it's a must. It's just when you do, they might want to make an example out of you, so you have to be ready for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Yupp, the bear patrol is working like a charm.
Re:What is sad here (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I do suppose this logic is "interesting."
I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.
So you're saying you'd rather have everyone who wants to get on a plane have their privacy violated because you're afraid of the minuscule chance that a terrorist might attack? I guess privacy isn't important at all as long as you can have your security theater.
But how about we install surveillance cameras in everyone's homes? It's for your own safety and could stop a few crimes, so it's all worth it. Rights mean nothing at all.
When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after we pumped up security?
When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack since I received my anti-terrorist rock?
And more than likely, it's not because of the TSA's security theater, but because of secured cockpit doors and the willingness of citizens to fight back.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, despite the massively unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is because the US chose to fight jihadis on foreign soil. Both Iraq and (especially) Afghanistan are fights out of the way of the general US populace and suck up jihadis from all over the World into a meat grinder where NATO has the complete upper hand. Despite the "if you kill on you'll just anger more" bullshit the fighting overseas has actually worked and killed many of the enemies of civilization.
As long as you keep killing ji
Re:What is sad here (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite the "if you kill on you'll just anger more" bullshit the fighting overseas has actually worked and killed many of the enemies of civilization.
Years ago, they noticed the death toll of "terrorists" was above the sum of all "terrorists" on the planet. Either the war manufactured terrorists faster than we were killing them, or we were just killing innocent civilians and calling them terrorists to justify out mass murder. Either way, we are as bad as they say we are.
Re:What is sad here (Score:4, Informative)
we were just killing innocent civilians and calling them terrorists to justify out mass murder
Relevent to this: The US military defines "militant" as any male person in any country of the Middle East except Israel between the ages 13-50. Consider that the next time you hear a news report that says that "4 militants and 6 civilians" were killed: That could well be a random extended family meeting up for Eid, not a terrorist cell.
Re:What is sad here (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says they have to "slip by"?
This is the thing I really don't get. Who created the belief that terrorists have to get past airport security to do anything and why do people believe it?
If I was a terrorist leader I'd blow up a few bags of ball bearings in the lines of people waiting to nudie-scanned. The country would implode overnight...
The only reason this isn't happening is that there are no terrorists.
(nb. If they want to "slip by" they can just put the C4 up their asses or whatever... Drug smugglers do it all the time, why not terrorists?)
Re:What is sad here (Score:4, Interesting)
The only reason this isn't happening is that there are no terrorists.
This. There was essentially no security flying from Mexico to the USA between 9/11 and somewhere around. 2009. Minimal perfunctory checking, no "take your shoes off" or "let me see you naked" crap. And guess what? not a single terrorist attack took place.
Americans complained about this around 2007 so the Mexican authorities created a special "security theater" line for Americans only, which seemed to make the 'tards happy.
Eventually the 'merkins clued into this, and forced a real pat down for everyone. There was no gain in security, but it makes them feel good, so we all have to go through it, even though it's useless security theater as already admitted to by the former head of the TSA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What is sad here (Score:4, Funny)
they were all hot, 35 years ago when they got hired. Somehow 60 year olds with 3 kids and 6 grandkids just lose the hot factor along they way.
Re:What is sad here (Score:4, Insightful)
So a person wearing a bomb is going to be afraid of a gun? If they are willing to blow themselves up, then threatening to shoot them after the fact is not going to dissuade them.
Re:What is sad here (Score:5, Interesting)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams
(Captcha - unneeded)
Re:What is sad here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Why is the US in the stone age when it comes to security?!
Hint: "Security" isn't the reason the TSA does what it does...
Re:What is sad here (Score:5, Insightful)
I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.
What about the kid who died in the wheel well of the jet airplane? If he could get in there then anyone could. Hell, just this week I saw a story about a guy who was stranded and hopped the fence into an airport, hoping to be confronted immediately by security (and thus saved). He walked around all the airplanes out on the tarmac, and right up to where the passenger terminals are. So, what good is getting groped or scanned other than to acclimate you to personal intrusions? None. It's the illusion of security. The scanners don't even work. Remember that story about the guy with a pocket on his sleeve? He put a metal cigarette pack in the pocket and since it was off his body, and appeared black as the background, they didn't see it at all on the scanner and he hopped on the plane with it.
Whatever happened to, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death?" Or that bit Ben Franklin said about trading your freedom for security and having neither? You've lost your way somewhere. You've become an irrational fear slut. You're thousands of times MORE likely to be killed in a car wreck and you don't run around spouting BS about how a TSA agent needs to ride with every car load to ensure safety. FUCK YOU. It's fools like you that are letting them turn the US into an oppressive regime, just like the ones we so hated in the 80's.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Jet Skier Breaches JFK Airport Perimeter, Wanders to Terminal 3 Undetected [nycaviation.com]
Questions now are raised as to why the Port Authority's $100 million Perimeter Intrusion Detection System (PIDS), loaded up with closed-circuit cameras and motion sensors, failed completely, and how a man can walk such a distance unnoticed. This is not JFK Airport's first perimeter breach, however. In early 2009, a trio of boaters ran ashore at the airport, w
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever happened to, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death?"
He got liberty. The TSA isn't being imposed by a king. It came into existence after popular demand for increased security. The agency was voted into existence by an elected congress and the detailed rules created by an elected executive. There have been multiple hearings with public comment on procedures. The elected congress has considered the proper balance and weighed in in favor of the enhanced security. The population has consistently fav
Re:What is sad here (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce Schneier will point out that there have been several attempts since, all of them stopped effectively - and all stopped by security that was already there BEFORE 9/11.
In fact the TSA has made no difference to security and the attempts since then would not have been caught by them.
Only two changes since 9/11 has actually IMPACTED on security.
1) Passengers changed their mindset from "do as we're told" to "fight back" - because the terrorists were no longer going to let you live if you obeyed.
2) They reinforced the cockpit doors (one could argue THAT should have been done in the FIRST place).
Re: (Score:3)
I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.
Then the terrorists have won. This is exactly what they've set out to achieve.
(By the way, I nearly lost a family member on 9/11)
Re: (Score:3)
Then the terrorists have won. This is exactly what they've set out to achieve.
No they didn't. The terrorists could care less whether the United States had a pat down policy on airplanes or not. You are not the center of the world. What they set out to achieve was:
a) An end of US support for the House of Saud
b) An end to US sanction against Iraq
c) An end for US support for Israel
with (a) beng the most important.
Re: (Score:3)
I do security, so I get defense in depth and agree a layered approach is the correct one. Ineffective controls however have no place.
They still irritate people who are not threats leading everyone to not take security seriously, at any point and causing them to thwart other controls rendering them less effective.
You are correct in that no plane has been hijacked after the new security measures were enforce, but its also true that terrorist organizations have succeeded in getting explosives on planes, they
Re:What is sad here (Score:5, Insightful)
When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after we pumped up security? Uncomfortable, yes. Bothersome - heck yeah. But we live.
When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after people realized they could be crashed into buildings?
Before September 11, no one had crashed a commercial airplane into a building as a terrorist attack. But, airplanes had been hijacked. Civilians were told not to interfere with a hijacking. If your plane were hijacked, you could expect to be flown to Cuba, sit around for a week or so, and then end up back in the US. That dynamic changed on September 11. AS SOON AS people realized that terrorists were flying planes into buildings, they started fighting back. That is why that plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Because the terrorists had hijacked the plane, but the passengers found out (from cell phones) what was probably going to happen and tried to take the airplane back. There is almost NO chance of a commercial flight being hijacked by terrorists now. Even if we didn't humiliate people with the TSA. Because the other 100 people on the plane would sacrifice their lives to stop them. No one would believe the hijacker WASN'T going to crash the plane into a building, so there would be no point in anyone NOT being a hero (you know you are going to die if you don't fight back, so you might as well fight back and try to live).
I fly quite often (at least a couple times per month). I would be perfectly fine with increasing my chance of dying on a plane by 0.00001% if that meant getting rid of the TSA. I would also be fine with the increased risk to my family because I believe their freedom and happiness are more important than their security.
You sir, are a coward. And it is people like you who allowed the Hitlers and Stalins commit their atrocities.
Re: (Score:3)
TSA - Terror Supply Agency.
You never really thought that the TSA was about preventing terror, did you?
Re:Summary is rediculoous (Score:5, Insightful)
TSA screeners aren't law enforcement.
Any other fallacious bullshit you'd like to spout while you're here?