November 16, 2010 - 8:45am
Today's Poll: What do you think of new TSA screening procedures?
posted by Howard B. Owens in polls.
November 16, 2010 - 10:21am#1
November 16, 2010 - 10:32am#2
I'm travelling right now and my 17 year old daughter was subjected to extra security measures. I've always taken the position that if I have to be inconvenienced in order to be safe than so be it, but there absolutely is a better way:
November 16, 2010 - 11:18am#3
I feel bad for the screeners who have to pat down random strangers
November 16, 2010 - 11:28am#4
November 16, 2010 - 12:45pm#5
watching some of the coverage on this issues I find my beliefs reflected in some statements made on these shows. Basically if alleged terrorists have made it past customs, fbi, cia, and all the other security agencies, is it really realistic to think these security screeners are gonna catch anything? Also isn't this letting the terrorist win? We give up our regular routines and inconvenience ourselves because of their actions? Time to assert ourselves and say.....enough.
November 16, 2010 - 12:58pm#6
Kyle, good comment
November 16, 2010 - 2:08pm#7
I think the BUZZ 98.9 has an answer. Everyone that does not want a pat-down gets to ride in one plane that is mechanically driven. After they sign off of a lawsuit from their family's "IF" something bad happen's. The ones who will do a pat-down get to ride safely on a good plane with the best pilot's.
November 16, 2010 - 3:19pm#8
Kyle, Then are you saying give up on pat downs and screening? If so, what do you suggest? It seems the bad guys are winning now with people saying safety is too much trouble.
November 16, 2010 - 3:49pm#9
Or perhaps the terrorist are winning as the government becomes more and more intrusive. After all, their goal is to see us lose our freedom.
November 16, 2010 - 4:04pm#10
Howard, I don't really think terrorists have a goal of seeing us lose our freedom. There goal is to see us dead.
November 16, 2010 - 4:24pm#11
Only those of us who stand in the way of imposing Sharia Law over the entire globe. The goal is loss of freedom, ultimately. Further, the more we weaken our democracy, the further the ultimate goal of the fanatics advances. As often attributed to Ben Franklin, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
November 16, 2010 - 4:56pm#12
Seems to me after 9/11 to now we have been pretty secure, so why change things now? As I said if all the agencies and specialists dont catch them up to the poin they are boarding a domestic flight. What makes you think a security person at an airport is going to? A little to little to late.
November 16, 2010 - 6:16pm#13
Its security theater with tax payers money. Bush was able to grow the government 60% with these useless programs. And shame on Obama for letting it expand.
November 16, 2010 - 6:33pm#14
Kyle, So your for standing pat? The bad guys continue to look for ways to kill you, but since they haven't got you yet, you're content? Sounds alot like pre-9/11.
November 16, 2010 - 7:02pm#15
I thought conservatives were against expanding government intrusion into our lives.
November 16, 2010 - 7:40pm#16
Howard, Keeping people safe from people who want to kill them is not intrusion.
November 16, 2010 - 7:46pm#17
John, your assumption is that this intrusion will keep people safe, or at least that the invasion of privacy is justified by an equal or significant likelihood that it will lead to greater safety. There's no proof of that and the leap of assumption there is something that not even Evel Knievel could jump.
November 16, 2010 - 7:47pm#18
I'll also add -- then why do conservatives oppose taking away guns from people? The "Keeping people safe from people who want to kill them is not intrusion" argument applies equally as well to supporting gun control.
November 16, 2010 - 8:03pm#19
Howard, I'd say having a gun (handgun or long-gun), if you want one, protects you from people who want to harm you. The old argument of should you have the right to shoot somebody who breaks into your home and threatens to harm you comes to mind. I think it is a stretch for you to compare securing the safety of people using public transportation, like an airport/airplane to the right to keep a gun in my home.
November 16, 2010 - 8:12pm#20
Howard, The use of scanners and pat downs is like trying to prove a negative. We will not know if they stop somebody from killing a bunch of people. But I would bet that without them, the odds are real good they would. You seem to think the risk to people is worth it, I just don't agree.
November 16, 2010 - 8:15pm#21
John, If you're willing to give up your freedom over your body, how can you argue that should also be allowed to own a gun? Taking away your gun would have as about much benefit to society as this TSA policy. The TSA's policy is a clear intrusion into personal space for no demonstrateable benefit to society or traveler safety. It's inconsistent to argue that the government should not be intrusive and then support this TSA policy.
November 16, 2010 - 8:17pm#22
I'm not willing to give up my rights for any reason.
November 16, 2010 - 8:20pm#23
Well John I dont think you take 9/11 as serious as I do.... shown by your casual use of reference to it. I was at a resteraunt 2 doors down from bowery and canal in lower manhattan that day. I was part of the chaos and confusion and having first aid training my first response was to go and help. I walked off that island that day a different human being. We improved our airport security measures after that day, and since then we havent had any major incidents like this, people are aware. So are security agencies, this "extra" is once again our govt going overboard. So yes I do stand on my viewpoint but I myself and airport security before this upgrade were nothing like they were before 9/11 and only someone who hasnt traveled much or is truly ignorant would make such a comparison....
November 16, 2010 - 8:46pm#24
Kyle, Don't be silly. I take 9/11 very seriously, and that is why I support every effort to protect people using airports. I believe there are people still out there who want to kill us and will look at every weak link in security to kill as many at one time as they can. Howard, You can just not fly if you feel that strong about it and I still think your linking airport security to gun ownership is weak. Howard, What airport security measure, if any, will you accept before you feel your rights are violated?
November 16, 2010 - 9:18pm#25
John, airport security was fine and working very well prior to the body scans and sexual assault searches. The link to gun ownership is very strong -- if you arguing that giving up your personal freedom and rights is OK for the TSA to abuse you in the name of security, then it's OK for the government to take away your guns to protect society. How is that weak? It's a direct parallel. Freedom is freedom. People who are for freedom don't pick and choose which freedoms they will surrender to the government.
November 16, 2010 - 9:47pm#26
Howard is right this is not the freedom i want..To go to and airport and be subject to this is not the right way to do it..We know that the terrorist will more than likely be Middle Eastern males..So why are we wasting time and money on body scans and sexual assault searches on 90% of the people who don't fit that profile..Is it political correctness ..I think it is..We don't want to offend the Middle Eastern type..
November 16, 2010 - 11:53pm#27
I agree, terrorists are usually male. But how many times have we heard of these cowards using women and children to carry out their acts of terror? These people have nothing that even resembles respect for human life. Any one of them, would think nothing of filling their grandmothers purse with plastic explosives, and putting her on a plane headed for the U.S. Simple: If you want the convenience of flying, this is what you have to do. If you don't want to be scanned or patted down..YOU DON'T GET ON THE PLANE!! Drive to your destination. Same thing in other countries. Submit to the scan or pat down...if not..YOU DON'T FLY TO THE UNITED STATES!!
November 17, 2010 - 6:17am#28
John, you keep talking about all these people that want to kill American citizens, what's the reason for that?. I'd say address that and security would not be as big a problem. The most telling quote is from a well respected General of our military. "We have shot at an amazing number of people, and to my knowledge, none have ever proven to be a threat". Gen Stanley McCrystal
November 17, 2010 - 6:29am#29
Terry, You assume that only Muslim extremist are the problem. You also totally ignore that 9/11 was before either of the current wars. While your trying to make them like us, what do you do in the mean time at airports?
November 17, 2010 - 6:47am#30
Howard, There have been examples of terrorist bringing explosives onto plans and for the most part it was only good luck that prevented a tragedy. That means that the measures you like did not work. I also agree the new measures might not have worked either, but that does not mean you don't even try. You say that the level of intrusion and lose of freedom you already have at the airport is OK, but this is too much intrusion? Why, if you really believe in total freedom, would you even consent to tell the airlines your as much as your name? What business is it of theirs? Why is a metal detector acceptable and not a pat down if freedom and not safety is the issue?
November 17, 2010 - 6:55am#31
John, to suggest that the reasonable and prudent steps being taken before is in anyway comparable to the over-the-top measures being taken now is just beyond a reasonable comparison. I've flown thousand and thousands of miles since 9/11 and have felt quite safe. These new measures will not make me feel any safer, only assaulted.
November 17, 2010 - 7:24am#32
Howard, So a "reasonable and prudent" amount of a lost freedom is OK. Now it comes to who gets to determine what is a reasonable amount of freedom to lose. I accept being forced to wear a seat belt, which is a violation of my rights, because I think it is reasonable. I'll either go through the scanner, because I think it is reasonable for air safety, or I'll drive my car (with seat belt). Odd, you would support the draft, which is taking away almost all of another persons freedom, but then say that same person should not have to go through an airport scanner on his way to involuntary servitude because he has rights.
November 17, 2010 - 7:41am#33
John, You're parsing to defend an undefendedable position. I wear a seat belt because I believe it's in my own best interest, not because the government tells me to. And I've previously addressed the inconsistency on the draft issue.
November 17, 2010 - 8:07am#34
Howard, Then you are saying while you want to wear a seat belt, the mandatory seat belt law is wrong. You would also have to say that making it illegal to smoke in public places is wrong. Both laws take away personal freedom in the name of the greater good. In fact, you would have to allow me to buy an assault gun. Since I have a right to bear arms, you have no right to tell me what kind I can have. And why should I have to register them with the government? Where is my privacy? As for the inconsistency on the draft issue, that's the problem with airport scanners. As with the draft, which I think is a bigger violation of freedom, there is a conflict between the public good and personal freedom.
November 17, 2010 - 8:21am#35
John, What I hear you saying is that you're willing to roll over and accept greater and greater government restrictions on personal freedom with hardly a whimper. Not a position I would expect from a conservative.
November 17, 2010 - 11:43am#36
The solution is to let Airlines control their security. If Airline-A wants to let passengers carry baseball bats on board and Airline-B wants to cavity search people, then people would have the choice on which to fly. The reason the pat downs have gotten so intrusive is because they want everyone to go through the cancer-machines. That way more TSA's can stand around and collect a check. Frisking people is just too much work.
November 17, 2010 - 8:58am#37
Howard, Do you support smoking bans in public places? Do you support mandatory use of seat belts? Do you support handgun restrictions? Did you speak out against any of these? All are as intrusive on my rights as an airport scanner, or even a metal detector going into the local courthouse. You support the draft (despite your qualms about it) which puts people into involuntary servitude and exposes them to being killed, but not willing to have them scanned in an airport which might prevent them from being killed. I find inconsistent from anyone.
November 17, 2010 - 9:09am#38
John, I support freedom. Do you?
November 17, 2010 - 9:11am#39
Sorry John for not getting back to you. I still dont think you seriously take 9/11 for what it was. Do you know what the goal of terrorism is? As I understand it (and I may be wrong) A group is trying to exert it's influence and control upon a Govt, to make it do it's will.... The means to do this is by killing innocent civilians and people of that country then tell those survivors of those victims that if their Govt does what that group wants....it stops. Like blackmail, if you give in you put a target on your back for other groups to do the same. So as I see it we arent the goal fo these terrorists....we are just a stepping stone. Therefore eroding our freedoms and choices is strengthening their goal of becoming an influence to our govt's policies and decsions. Somewhere it has to stop, we paid for the freedoms we have and had with the blood of civilians and soldiers alike in all of our wars. To give up some of those rights just because of something that might or could happen but hasnt....thats just wrong in my eyes. Its gonna take blood to keep these rights, it might not be a fair thing, or doesnt seem right but realistically thats the way the world works. Thats my viewpoint, It my right to fly without being subjected to overly invasive searches or groping. I am sure that business people, people with money and clout or even politicians dont have to go thru these. In other words if your important enough or shell out premium dollars you wont be subject to this. When was the last time you heard of an nfl player or senator or state legistslator also being required to do these procedures.
November 17, 2010 - 9:32am#40
Kyle, Your wrong again. I do understand 9/11. I do not believe the 9/11 murders want to take my freedom, they want to take my life. I don't disagree with you on most terrorist movements. But in my opinion, the 9/11 murders are different. To them, you join the jihad or die. And for some reason, they like to attack air travel.
November 17, 2010 - 9:38am#41
Howard, Didn't you say you accept "reasonable and prudent" restriction to your freedom? And didn't you say you support forcing people into the military? So how do you support freedom again? This sounds inconsistent to me. I gave 3 easy examples of restrictions to freedom and asked if you support them. Will you have time today to answer them? I also admit I will not change your mind on scanners.
November 17, 2010 - 9:43am#42
John, I support freedom. Do you?
November 17, 2010 - 9:52am#43
Howard, Yes I do, but I find scanners "reasonable and prudent", as you find other restrictions at the airport. What about my 3 examples?
November 17, 2010 - 10:07am#44
Sorry John it appears you have blinders on, first of all you arent given a choice to join Jihad..... And their goal is not to take your life...the goal is to spread their way of life to everyone, to do that they have to destroy the Govts that disagree, and the way to td that is to kill the innocent and civilian until they raise up and rebel against that Govt. As for your 3 restrictions of freedom.... Smoking ban in public places.....Dubious at best as it pits the rights of smokers to the rights of non-smokers, which common sense says should fall to the non-smokers as the people who smoke make the choice to ignore possible health effects. But I'd also like to point out that you dont see attendants at the entrance of public places searching for smoking materials or sniffing people to see if they smell of smoke and then denying them entrance to said public place. Mandatory use of seatbelts.... Driving isnt a right its a privelidge, one that can be taken away for violation of the rules established for this priveledge. You sign your license and take a test which verifies that you supposedly read the drivers manual. You can also not use your seatbelt, and pay the fine for not doing so, again a choice. There are no police sitting at your car door or at the end of your driveway enforcing immediate compliance at the cost of you using your car. Handgun restrictions while inconvenient still arent as restrictive as you make them out to be yet.....unless you have a record of violent offences, or other valid reasons why you shouldnt own one you can fairly easily, the only restrictions being more scruitny for more pivelidge (ie ownership vs license to carry). Now there are laws being considered that would take this beyond a reasonable nature and while I don't pretend to speak for Howard or anyone else but myself, I will speak out against those laws as much as I do this new airport security measures.
November 17, 2010 - 10:25am#45
John, I'm not going to play tit for tat because the other issues in this context are irrelevant. The pornographic scans and sexual abuse by the TSA serve no legitimate government purpose other than to harass citizens. They do not greatly enhance airline security and can just as well be thwarted as any other security measure, other than, perhaps, a full body cavity search. Would you support that as "reasonable and prudent," since that's what's coming next, the next time a would-be bomber makes it past this system. Somebody above said either accept the new security protocol or not fly. It's just as easy to say, accept that some risk goes with flying -- as with any transportation method, including riding in a car -- or don't fly. At some point, security becomes ridiculous, and we've reached that point.
November 17, 2010 - 10:31am#46
Kyle, So, you agree that some restrictions on freedom are, as Howard calls them, "reasonable and prudent". Some restriction you like, some you don't. For the record, I support and have no problem with the seat belt law. And I don't have a problem with the smoking bans in most places. I find them reasonable and prudent, but I also admit I am taking some body's freedom away who does not agree and smokes. On guns, I find it inconsistent with my freedom to restrict the type of gun I want, if I have the right to own a gun. Why is one gun "good" and one "bad"? I object to having to identify myself and sign papers if I want to buy ammo at a store as a violation to my right to privacy. The government already knows if you own a gun, what governmental interest do they have knowing if I am buying ammunition for them? I think the restriction on a right to carry a pistol, if I have the right to own it, is also a violation of my rights. But many people think that restricting my right is reasonable and prudent. Just out of curiosity, do you think the draft is a violation of freedom? Or do you think that at times, involuntary servitude in necessary? It's clear that our view of the intention of the 9/11 murders is not the same.
November 17, 2010 - 10:37am#47
Howard, It seems to me you were the one who brought other issues into this by trying in gun ownership. I think we have made our opinions known and probably bored too many others with them.
November 17, 2010 - 10:47am#49
November 17, 2010 - 10:53am#50
Its not a matter that some are prudent and some are not.....if you look at my examples, smkoing ban is there but to have it raised to the point that you are patted down or subjected to sniff tests before being allowed into a public place. That is what the airline security is doing right now. If you cant see that then you will never be convinced, but your opinion is yours. Doesnt change facts. As far as guns go, well you can hide a handgun and it can be brought to use much easier and most cases has much more ammo and lethality to unintended targets. As for signing for ammo, I have never had to do this myself so I'm not sure where you buy from I can go into Wal-Mart and buy .22 ammo to .45 cal ammo without signing. No like a car a pistol is a tool that can be a weapon as well, some degree of understanding and rules must be verified before granting that privelidge. You dont like the rules....dont apply to carry a gun (just a side note if have a gun permit but not one to carry, but still get caught with one, it mitigates penalties vs just owning and carrying with no permit at all) If you want to participate in society then you have to accept some regulation and rules, but not blindly or excessive ones. As our society believes that rules are neccesary but the extremes arent. The rest of your argument is getting off topic, The TSA is overstepping and that is what we are discussing. What if this and what about that arent really relevant.