If you're suggesting that the TSA think of something else - well, I'm sure they've thought about it, and done studies and research, and this is what they can come up with.
No, I'm not telling the TSA to come up with something, I am telling the TSA to take a hike.
We're not talking about just 9/11 style attacks - which were hijackings and suicide flights - we're talking bombs and mid-air explosions bringing down a plane over populated areas such that there may be additional casualties on the ground. So, whether another 9/11 attack is unlikely due to cockpit doors is not determinitive.
Yes, and we've dealt with and minimized these threats for decades. We did not need TSA agents giving hand jobs and manhandling old ladies to do it.
Even the great peacemker Obama, I daresay, will feel tremendous pressure to act in retaliation to any such attack. The American people were out for blood in 2001 and 2002. Think of what another attack would do to the drum beats of war?
A lot has happened since 9/11. We are not the same people we were. If anything, Obama's presidency is in more danger from the popular groundswell against his administration's activities discussed here than from a terrorist attack.
Michael Hafer You know, when I read that I wanted to muff-punch you with my typewriter. One girl; two cocks. Ultimate showdown.
lordpasternack wrote:I've been through scanners, patted down, had the padlock on my suitcase broken off and my luggage at least sniffed... SO FUCKING WHAT?
I'm more annoyed by the liquid restrictions (which aren't actually all that defensible, when you get down to the science of it), and the worry about putting certain items in certain boxes for going through the luggage scanner and whatnot, when I'm tired and dazed during long-haul flying. Oh, and the possibility of "accidents" during potentional pat downs. I was patted down after being scanned in Singapore on the way back from Australia, just after the fly button came off my trousers, and I'd abashedly picked it back up from the ground. It goes without saying that my belt was also off at that time. Things could have got a bit undignified.
And yet another relevant strip from XKCD:
Regarding the laptop battery issue raised in the cartoon - A laptop battery does not have enough material in it to cause an explosion that would have any chance of downing a plane. Those batteries can be made to ignite, but even if they did, it would only really hurt the person holding the laptop, and even then it would be superficial burns, most likely. The way to really make a laptop blow up is with other chemicals and flammables....but, that would require a significant amount of some liquid carried onto the plane along with the laptop....
If you're suggesting that the TSA think of something else - well, I'm sure they've thought about it, and done studies and research, and this is what they can come up with.
No, I'm not telling the TSA to come up with something, I am telling the TSA to take a hike.
Fair enough. But, the reality is that with or without the TSA, there will be airport security. If you put it in the hands of the airlines and left it up to the free market, letting airlines get their asses sued for negligence by every person injured in a downed airplane (strict liability was the rule, actually, before government regulations were prevalent in the industry), then you will have airlines protecting themselves from the liability, followed by cost cutters taking the chance and preparing to flee the country and file bankruptcy if a plane gets taken down. Good airlines will charge more and offer security, and cheap airlines will charge less and roll the dice.
eXcommunicate wrote:
We're not talking about just 9/11 style attacks - which were hijackings and suicide flights - we're talking bombs and mid-air explosions bringing down a plane over populated areas such that there may be additional casualties on the ground. So, whether another 9/11 attack is unlikely due to cockpit doors is not determinitive.
Yes, and we've dealt with and minimized these threats for decades. We did not need TSA agents giving hand jobs and manhandling old ladies to do it.
They're not the same threats as decades ago. The sophistication of our adversaries are greater, the number of people trying is going up, and they are getting better at what they're doing.
You had an objection to straw men before - nobody is giving hand jobs, and if they were I'd request TSA agent Ivana Humpalot to rub one out for me before I got on the plane so I can sleep better. In reality, it's just a pat down and quick check of the undercarriage to see if there's anything tucked up in there.
eXcommunicate wrote:
Even the great peacemker Obama, I daresay, will feel tremendous pressure to act in retaliation to any such attack. The American people were out for blood in 2001 and 2002. Think of what another attack would do to the drum beats of war?
A lot has happened since 9/11. We are not the same people we were. If anything, Obama's presidency is in more danger from the popular groundswell against his administration's activities discussed here than from a terrorist attack.
Blow up a plane in mid-air over an American city, and we will want war.
Frankly, we should want war in that circumstance, because it is an act of war. I'd like to avoid that, of course. But, an act of war can't be left unanswered. Those that planned it and sponsored it must be killed. But, that's a matter of opinion, of course. The only relevance was in whether or not it will happen. Take down a plane or two, kill a few hundred Americans, if the Administration finds out who was behind it, they will kill them. War would be quite likely.
Excom thinks Paulie is someone worth listening to.
I lol'd so hard my ribs hurt. Should we also listen to Paul when it comes to Evolution or anti-discrimination laws?
Tell me, how is the search unreasonable?
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."
Ian wrote:Privacy shmivacy. When I fly, I want the aircraft as safe as reasonably possible. The effectiveness of these scanners lies not only in what they're able to see, but what they're able to deter. Would-be terrorists might go elsewhere because they exist. If in the meantime a TSA employee gets to see a momentary x-ray-like image of my twig & berries, that doesn't bother me a bit.
I've flown probably fifty times over the last five years. Going through security has yet to ever make me late for a flight, it has yet to make me strip down in public, and it has yet to confiscate anything from me. If it ever does any of these things, then maybe I'll complain a little about privacy rights when I fly.
Giving up your rights is okay as long as it's convenient. Understood.
Hells yes!
What rights are you really worried about? That a TSA employee might get to see an x-ray image of your junk for a few seconds before you walk off to your flight's gate? I say let's deal with it and fly with greater peace of mind.
Or is it the ever-present "slippery slope": that if they want scanners now, then sooner or later they'll want to strip you down and search your cavities at the airport. Semantic hogwash I say - that's the logic of the reactionaries. I want Uncle Sam to make my flight as safe as possible without actually screwing with my travel plans. If I have to walk through a body scanner... well boo friggin' hoo. That's about as low a "civil rights" priority as I can think of.
eXcommunicate wrote:How can you say the "slippery slope" is hogwash, when all you have to do is look at the past 30 years to see it actually happening.
I still feel perfectly comfortable walking through an airport, that's how. I still get to go to my plane on time, do the stupid airline crossowrd puzzle in their magazine, and I get to my destination on my own.
The conflict between privacy rights and security is never going to go too far to one side, not in this country. I reject the whole slippery slope argument from either side, at least as far as this issue goes.
Deersbee wrote:I've been wondering how safe those scans are, X-rays are no joke.
The number I've seen is that, according to standard dose models, they will cause about 1 fatal cancer per 200,000,000 exposures, plus some cancers that don't end up being the ultimate cause of death. That works out to several deaths a year if they are installed at all airports.
Personally, I suspect that that is a bigger cost than the added safety from using full body scans over using metal detectors plus random searches.
The TSA controversy just highlights the need to get to work on those flying cars they've been promising us for decades, so we don't have to put up with this nonsense anymore.
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
What people very idiocially seem to miss is that increase in security has always been a reactionary move. Slippery slop is hogwash.
Security didn't increase because security increased. Security increased because of bombs found on planes and in airports, and things like 9/11.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."
The Mad Hatter wrote:What people very idiocially seem to miss is that increase in security has always been a reactionary move. Slippery slop is hogwash.
Security didn't increase because security increased. Security increased because of bombs found on planes and in airports, and things like 9/11.
What some idiotically seem to miss is that the "slippery slope" comes into play when people passively allow such measures to be implemented with no fuss. A foundation is laid for further deprivations because the people did not stand up to this one. It doesn't mean that specifically airport security gets more draconian, but the overall system does. Many liberals and civil libertarians thought Obama would roll back most of Bush's excesses. Instead he has increased them. You can't rely on the system to give up power without extreme public pressure. Like a frog in boiling water you think everything is alright until you boil to death.
Michael Hafer You know, when I read that I wanted to muff-punch you with my typewriter. One girl; two cocks. Ultimate showdown.
I can tell the difference between an invasion of privacy and a reasonable security check established in reponse to a number of acts that have occured over the past decade. Can you?
Obviously not, or you wouldn't be so inclined to use the 'slippery slope' fallacy.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."
