Mad As Hell: Airport Security Screening Protests Mount

[Man with the Golden Arm]

Old article from the Globe seems to point to the usual moral of the $tory.

You'd think he'd know all about El Al.

[medjuck]

Retina scans.

They have this now in some countries for international travel. You go for an interview, fork over an application fee, they do a background check, scan your retina and issue you a card. When you travel, you go to a separate, much shorter line when boarding international flights. They scan the old retina, probably wave a wand over you and look through your carry-on bags, and off you go while the hoi polloi waits in long lines for their body cavity searches.

No reason I can see why they couldn't offer the same sort of thing for domestic air travel.

Some would undoubtedly complain about privacy issues -- I'm sure you are entered into a database and monitored in some fashion. But if you want faster, less intrusive security measures at the checkpoint, this may be one way to go.

I have that for travel between US and Canada. But it's just for customs and immigration, not security.

[Jim Alfredson]

Frankly, I'm more upset that you can't even get a free snack, much less a meal on a cross-country flight anymore and that you have to pay upwards of $23 to check a bag. That's more ridiculous than the screening measures, imo.

[Christiern]

Longing for the good old days, when I flew to California once a month. They gave you a choice of steak, chicken, or seafood, baggage allowance was generous, groping was of the in-flight variety....and consensual. There was even a pleasant place to rendezvous aboard, as in this coach lounge (first class was $15 more on coast-to-coast flights had a pianist):

[BERIGAN]

Body-Searching Children: No for the US Army, Yes for the TSA

TSA Forces Cancer Survivor To Show Prostestic Breast

[Noj]

Right wingers are awesomely conflicted folk. The "Patriot" Act (which was about as unpatriotic as possible) was necessary for heightened security, but heightened security at airports is bad (at least while there's a Democrat in office). Airport searches are bad, but torturing POWs is A-OK. Big government is bad, but uber-expensive voluntary military ventures are fantastic. Tools.

[neveronfriday]

Like many other people I know, people who used to be all over the map, I've erased the US off my map completely.

I'd rather travel to Sierra Leone.

[Guy Berger]

Let's hear it for manufactured outrage!

[JSngry]

Yeah! It's one of the few things that we still do manufacture!

[Ted O'Reilly]

Here's an option I'd take, submitted by "Andyman" as a comment on an Atlantic site:

Market solution: let people opt out of all of it. When you’re booking beforehand, make sure you book a “non-secure” flight. Along with all your co-travelers, pilots, and crew, sign a waiver at the airport instead of going through security. Those of us who prefer to keep our dignity intact and are happy to take our chances with underwear bombers will be much better served.

[BERIGAN]

Let's hear it for manufactured outrage!

Really??? Manufactured eh??? Did you see the first link in my last post... from the Atlantic???

the writer is... James Fallows - James Fallows is a National Correspondent for The Atlantic. A 25-year veteran of the magazine and former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, he is also an instrument-rated pilot and a onetime program designer at Microsoft.

No doubt a tool of the right...This should be everyone's concern.

He quoted a staff sergeant as saying...

In reading your post and the most recent one from Mr. Goldberg about the War on Terror and pedophilia, I am disturbed. What bothers me is that I am on the verge of re-deploying from Afghanistan after a 10-month combat tour that involved having to deal with, among other things, conducting searches of local nationals when involved with security tasks within my Infantry company. At no time were we permitted or even encouraged to search children or women. In fact, this would have been considered an extreme violation of acceptable cultural practice and given the way word travels here, been a propaganda victory for the Taliban.

So, no big deal now that what soldiers overseas can't do what we are being forced into going through??? Who cares if parents flying will have to add to their speeches to their children, no one can touch you in your private areas, except those nice folks at the TSA

Where else can ANYONE touch your junk to prove you don't have some sort of explosive device on your person??? I mean, we are not talking about people who have been arrested....all for the extremely unlikely occurrence of a terrorist bringing something on-board past security, that he can actually ignite the device while in the air???

What is more likely in the future, a big push to bring down several commercial airliners ala 9-11, or to have a big attack at a major sporting event??? Who really knows, but they are not making people go though body scanners(yet) at sporting events, concerts, whathaveyou....is this the road we as a nation go down???

Here's an option I'd take, submitted by "Andyman" as a comment on an Atlantic site:

Market solution: let people opt out of all of it. When you’re booking beforehand, make sure you book a “non-secure” flight. Along with all your co-travelers, pilots, and crew, sign a waiver at the airport instead of going through security. Those of us who prefer to keep our dignity intact and are happy to take our chances with underwear bombers will be much better served.

All for that! Jesus, I am much more likely to die driving through downtown Atlanta than flying....

Right wingers are awesomely conflicted folk. The "Patriot" Act (which was about as unpatriotic as possible) was necessary for heightened security, but heightened security at airports is bad (at least while there's a Democrat in office). Airport searches are bad, but torturing POWs is A-OK. Big government is bad, but uber-expensive voluntary military ventures are fantastic. Tools.

Don't forget that Democrats such as Rahm Emanuel, Clinton, Biden, Kennedy, and Reid also voted for re-authorization of the Patriot act in 2006...

Hey, more manufactured outrage...who could have any issues with this???

$11,000 fine, arrest possible for some who refuse airport scans and pat downs

By John Lantigua Palm Beach Post

If you don't want to pass through an airport scanner that allows security agents to see an image of your naked body or to undergo the alternative, a thorough manual search, you may have to find another way to travel this holiday season.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.

That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.

"Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave that process," says Sari Koshetz, regional TSA spokesperson, based in Miami.

More

[Jazzmoose]

I see you agree that it's an impossible issue to 'keep the politics out of this'...

[BruceH]

Isn't "no unreasonable searches and seizures (of one's junk)" in the bill of rights?

[JSngry]

Yeah we got bombed a few years ago and yeah it was horrific and yeah there's still some bad people out there trying to do it again, but at some point a strong, sane, and sensible people say "fuck it, enough is enough, no more tripping out, let's just move on", and I think we've long since passed the point where we should have done that, which leads me to wonder if we haven't crossed the point of no return on the way to some other place.

[Alexander]

What I find...odd, to say the least, is that the most recent event referenced in these TSA complaints is the underwear bomber of 2009. Have people forgotten that people armed with FUCKING BOX CUTTERS managed to destroy two fucking big buildings? Don't you think than an invasive search before Mohamed Atta got on the plane might have, I don't know, PREVENTED 9/11?

Odd that the same people who keep invoking 9/11 and Homeland Security at every turn are the same people who say, "Hey, what are the odds of something like that really happening?"

Wasn't it Condi Rice who said, "We couldn't have possibly imagined that such a thing could have happened" when, in fact, a report warning of just such an attack was issued just a couple of years earlier?

Our memories aren't just short, they are DAMNED selective!

[ejp626]

What I find...odd, to say the least, is that the most recent event referenced in these TSA complaints is the underwear bomber of 2009. Have people forgotten that people armed with FUCKING BOX CUTTERS managed to destroy two fucking big buildings? Don't you think than an invasive search before Mohamed Atta got on the plane might have, I don't know, PREVENTED 9/11?

Odd that the same people who keep invoking 9/11 and Homeland Security at every turn are the same people who say, "Hey, what are the odds of something like that really happening?"

Wasn't it Condi Rice who said, "We couldn't have possibly imagined that such a thing could have happened" when, in fact, a report warning of just such an attack was issued just a couple of years earlier?

Our memories aren't just short, they are DAMNED selective!

Well actually the only reason the box cutters were sufficient was because we were operating under the old rules of negotiating with hijackers and trying to keep the situation calm. Since no one had experienced any hijackers so nihilistic as to be willing to try to steer planes into buildings. The screening process in place a year ago (without the nude photos and junk-touching), and the secured cockpit doors, would be far more than necessary to prevent that type of attack. That's what I call selective memory.

Believe me, I wish the conservatives had been on board prior to the Patriot Act, since that monstrosity never should have passed, but I will gladly take their assistance in helping roll this back, even if it causes a black eye for Obama.

At a certain point we are just going to have to live with some uncertainty. This new super-invasive screening IS NOT adding to airport security and most experts will admit (under some duress) that 1) the underwear bomber would probably still have gotten through and 2) this screening isn't going to stop anyone who puts explosives in a body cavity. And almost certainly this latter approach is going to be tried some day. If the oh-so-predictable response from TSA (and Obama or whoever happens to be President) is that you have to spread 'em to get on a plane, I will never fly in the US again. That's all there is to it.

[mellowT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdXhdiDFAj0&feature=player_embedded

[Free For All]

I flew out of Tallahassee yesterday and there was no pat-down, no nothing. Obviously it's a small airport, but I thought there might have been something different in the security check-in. Not the case.

My return flight leaves from Denver, I'm sure that will be more like what I expect it to be.

[ejp626]

I flew out of Tallahassee yesterday and there was no pat-down, no nothing. Obviously it's a small airport, but I thought there might have been something different in the security check-in. Not the case.

My return flight leaves from Denver, I'm sure that will be more like what I expect it to be.

Again, the utter inanitity of it. There is even a list of the airports with and without the new screeners, so if one were a terrorist, one could pretty easily choose a smaller airport and make sure you transfer to a larger plane at Denver or O'Hare or somewhere (assuming taking down a small plane isn't impressive enough). For the time being, I'm going to fly out of Midway which supposedly has the old-style security. The whole situation is absurd and, yes, I do hope the protestors manage to shut down an airport or two. It's long past time to have a real conversation about risks and benefits and even profiling and other kinds of intelligence measures -- and not simply rely on the word of security experts who have a vested interest in growing the TSA.

[medjuck]

Article about reason/excuses for pat downs.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-petn-20101124,0,3675872.story

It begins:

New airport security procedures that have stirred the emotions of air travelers — full-body scans and aggressive pat-downs — were largely designed to detect an explosive powder called PETN, which has been a staple of Al Qaeda bomb makers for nearly a decade.

[Alexander]

I don't want people to think that I'm in favor of invasive searches without reason. What gets me is that the same people who are objecting so strenuously are the same people who, a few years ago, were screaming, "Security at any price!"

I've also had it pointed out that overseas people have been dealing with similar airport security for decades (just as they've been dealing with higher gas prices). Our vocal objection also goes to show how relatively sheltered and pampered Americans are...

[BERIGAN]

Were the scanners turned off today???

http://gizmodo.com/5698536/fliers-claim-tsa-have-deactivated-body-scanners

[medjuck]

The scanners at LAX may not have been opened yet. I flew out last week from Terminal 2 and I just went through the usual machine and didn't even see the scanners. (Though maybe they're just not in all terminals.)

[Guy Berger]

Sadly, the scan I underwent today in SFO was far less racy than Fox News and Matt Drudge had led me to expect!

Guy

[papsrus]

Story in tomorrow's Times about how the whole thing was basically a non-event. (Their take, not necessarily mine).

A news event that fed on itself while air travelers went about their business with little or no regard for the "outrage."

Stray TV crews wandering around airports looking for pissed off people and the closest thing they could find was a crying baby.