Newsstand - US Sikh group opposes headwear screening

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200708270341.htm

America's largest Sikh civil rights organisation, the Sikh Coalition, has strongly opposed new headwear screening procedures put in place by the Transportation Security Administration earlier this month.
"Telling screeners to search people in turbans is the same as telling them to search black people or Arabs or Muslims. The policy allows screeners to single out travellers on the basis of their religion. The message this sends to the public is that people who wear turbans are dangerous," said Amardeep Singh, Executive Director of the Sikh Coalition.

I like how the guy from their civil rights organization draws a conclusion that turban wearers are black or Muslim. I'm sure he didn't mean it that way but come on... awkward. :p

Good.

If the imbeciles in the TSA used the puffer instead of playing their sick shoe, liquid, and touch-feely games, we'd have better security and less harassment.

I am pleased when any agency stands up to the incompetent bullies in the TSA. The TSA should be destroyed.

I like how the guy from their civil rights organization draws a conclusion that turban wearers are black or Muslim. I'm sure he didn't mean it that way but come on... awkward. :p


I think the person's statement simply means that singling out those wearing turbans for additional screening is just lime saying that the TSA has to screen blacks, Latinos, Asians, Jews, Catholics, etc., not that those wearing the turbans are blacks or Muslims.

In any case, I agree with Spiff's sentiment that no one monitors the TSA.

fuzz

"Telling screeners to search people in turbans is the same as telling them to search black people or Arabs or Muslims. The policy allows screeners to single out travellers on the basis of their religion.

Nuts. You can't hide a weapon or explosive inside "black, Arab, or Muslim." You can hide it inside a turban. And if this policy fails I'll claim Sikh and carry my bottled water and shampoo in my new stars-and-stripes-design turban.

This whole security thing, while already ridiculous and ineffective, is turning into nothing but one big politicized joke.

PS: I like Sikhs and hate TSA too. But this playing the race/religion card has to stop.

I think the person's statement simply means that singling out those wearing turbans for additional screening is just lime saying that the TSA has to screen blacks, Latinos, Asians, Jews, Catholics, etc., not that those wearing the turbans are blacks or Muslims.

In any case, I agree with Spiff's sentiment that no one monitors the TSA.

fuzz

Hence me saying "I'm sure he didn't mean it that way".

I've seen people of all races have to remove their hats when going through security. Go to a concert and watch how they screen some of these kids and it's not even for safety, it's so that people don't bring in booze and they can make an extra few bucks.

Good.

If the imbeciles in the TSA used the puffer instead of playing their sick shoe, liquid, and touch-feely games, we'd have better security and less harassment.


The only problem is that the a**hole TSA morons will want you to take off your shoes and turbans so that they can be x-rayed for explosives.

Hrm... device to detect explosives.

Remove objects that can be used to hide explosives and scan them with a device that can't detect explosives.

Pure f***ing genius right there.

Hence me saying "I'm sure he didn't mean it that way".

I've seen people of all races have to remove their hats when going through security. Go to a concert and watch how they screen some of these kids and it's not even for safety, it's so that people don't bring in booze and they can make an extra few bucks.

I might be wrong concerning the Sikhs, but I do believe that for a Male Shikh to remove his Turban and have his hair revealed in public is like a Married Religious Jewish woman doing the same. True alot of religious Jewish women wear a wig that at times looks a like better then their real hair, so Im sure those working the check-points dont know that , but many do wear hats or scarves. So the Sikhs dont have a leg to stand on since Religious Jewish women have to go thru the samething.

the answer is if TSA wants to do a Check then the person should be brought into a closed room where a person of the same Sex checks them. If a person doesnt want to be checked even by someone of the same Sex , thats fine, Do NOT fly.

the answer is if TSA wants to do a Check then the person should be brought into a closed room where a person of the same Sex checks them. If a person doesnt want to be checked even by someone of the same Sex , thats fine, Do NOT fly.

No.

The problem is that the TSA wants to do these ridiculous checks of anyone in this manner in the first place!

The puffer detects explosives. The x-ray does not. No one should have to remove ANY garment without clear, probable cause to do so - e.g. an alarm on the puffer.

The TSA's unnecessary and un-American authority remains unchecked and it's time we ripped it from the Communists 'in charge' of the TSA, destroy the agency completely, cast these 'leaders' into Guantanamo (or guano), and went back to private security firms who have both accountability and oversight.

Down with the TSA!

equating a HAT to a TURBAN is ridiculous. having had a close Sikh friend in high school (who has since converted to Christianity, but that's neither here nor there), it is my understanding that a turban, in the Sikh faith, is a requirement of religious law for all Sikh males of age. this goes hand in hand with their belief that males should not cut their hair (head, face, etc). also, the headcovering for Jewish women is a custom, not a matter of law. in this way, it differs significantly from the Sikh "custom" of wearing a turban.

to Spiff's point, the fact that the TSA makes the clunkiest "solutions", that at the very least toe the line of constitutionality, to ferret out supposed security threats is what is appalling. and as a non-lawyer, i would think that this could easily be interpreted as the TSA impeding free practice of one's religion. i'm sure it's just much better for everyone that the TSA foregoes investing in the existing technology to detect explosives while looking for a plastic shiv in some guy's turban. my metal cross pen could probably do more damage.

No.

The problem is that the TSA wants to do these ridiculous checks of anyone in this manner in the first place!

The puffer detects explosives. The x-ray does not. No one should have to remove ANY garment without clear, probable cause to do so - e.g. an alarm on the puffer.

The TSA's unnecessary and un-American authority remains unchecked and it's time we ripped it from the Communists 'in charge' of the TSA, destroy the agency completely, cast these 'leaders' into Guantanamo (or guano), and went back to private security firms who have both accountability and oversight.

Down with the TSA!

No the problem is Unfortunately security checks are needed, Yes we here in the US have a very long way to go to get it up to what it should be, like in most European or South/Central Americian Country where they have been doing security checks way before 9-11.

But if its to be done it should be done properly with respect to a person religious needs taken into consideration among other things.

equating a HAT to a TURBAN is ridiculous. having had a close Sikh friend in high school (who has since converted to Christianity, but that's neither here nor there), it is my understanding that a turban, in the Sikh faith, is a requirement of religious law for all Sikh males of age. this goes hand in hand with their belief that males should not cut their hair (head, face, etc). also, the headcovering for Jewish women is a custom, not a matter of law. in this way, it differs significantly from the Sikh "custom" of wearing a turban.

I wasn't trying to equate the two and I left out the other places they search (shoes, belts, boots if they are wearing them, etc.) at these concerts.

I guess this begs the question, what if a hat was required by a faith? Maybe the Cowboy's Church believes the hat a symbol of faith and all men are required to wear it, would you say they can wear it through security or not?

I personally don't care. If they are wearing something metal underneath it, the metal detector should pick it up.

equating a HAT to a TURBAN is ridiculous. having had a close Sikh friend in high school (who has since converted to Christianity, but that's neither here nor there), it is my understanding that a turban, in the Sikh faith, is a requirement of religious law for all Sikh males of age. this goes hand in hand with their belief that males should not cut their hair (head, face, etc). also, the headcovering for Jewish women is a custom, not a matter of law. in this way, it differs significantly from the Sikh "custom" of wearing a turban.


The covering of a Married Jewish womans hair is NOT a custom but is a Law. a man is suppose to have his head covered at all times NOT his hair. While a married woman is suppose to have her hair covered, so although many do so its not really correct that wearing a baseball cap with her hair in a say a pony-tail, as that will suffice for a man who needs to have a head covering not a hair covering, but NOT for a woman.

So a Religious Jewish woman and a Sikh male are in the same exact boat for the same reason, that of not allowing ones actual hair to be seen in public.

No the problem is Unfortunately security checks are needed, Yes we here in the US have a very long way to go to get it up to what it should be, like in most European or South/Central Americian Country where they have been doing security checks way before 9-11.

But if its to be done it should be done properly with respect to a person religious needs taken into consideration among other things.

Security checks are needed; stupid un-American harassment is not.

The puffer detects explosives. The x-ray does not. When people have to remove garments to look for explosives it's a sad commentary on the complete and utter failure of the TSA to provide security of any kind.

Down with the TSA! Down with filthy Communism masquerading as "security"!

I wasn't trying to equate the two and I left out the other places they search (shoes, belts, boots if they are wearing them, etc.) at these concerts.

I guess this begs the question, what if a hat was required by a faith? Maybe the Cowboy's Church believes the hat a symbol of faith and all men are required to wear it, would you say they can wear it through security or not?

I personally don't care. If they are wearing something metal underneath it, the metal detector should pick it up.

what if they have a bottle of explosives under it and walking thru the machine wont set it off

what if they have a bottle of explosives under it and walking thru the machine wont set it off

Must be a 10 gallon hat. :D

Security checks are needed; stupid un-American harassment is not.

The puffer detects explosives. The x-ray does not. When people have to remove garments to look for explosives it's a sad commentary on the complete and utter failure of the TSA to provide security of any kind.

Down with the TSA! Down with filthy Communism masquerading as "security"!

No its a very poor commentary on how low people will SINK in order to attack others. Like how Ambulances are used under the cover of transporting people while its filled with fighters or moving guns etc from place to place. As is using towns as places to send off rockets as if the other side reponds there most likely will be Civs killed and that way they can scream bloody murder on what the other side is doing.

Unfortunately the other side looking to inflict harm isnt playing by the rules in your book, nor are they any time likely to do so.

Must be a 10 gallon hat. :D

Ive been told that a small bottle with the right stuff in it can do alot of damage

No its a very poor commentary on how low people will SINK in order to attack others. Like how Ambulances are used under the cover of transporting people while its filled with fighters or moving guns etc from place to place. As is using towns as places to send off rockets as if the other side reponds there most likely will be Civs killed and that way they can scream bloody murder on what the other side is doing.

Unfortunately the other side looking to inflict harm isnt playing by the rules in your book, nor are they any time likely to do so.

What in the world does this have to do with two fundamental facts:

1) The x-ray does not detect explosives

2) The puffer does

:confused:

The only 'rules' in question here are the laws of physics which the TSA not only doesn't understand, but actually goes out of its way to contradict.

The puffer detects explosives. The x-ray does not. No one should have to remove ANY garment without clear, probable cause to do so - e.g. an alarm on the puffer.Or alarm the WTMD.

Ive been told that a small bottle with the right stuff in it can do alot of damage

Perhaps you should start investigating these 'I've been told' rumors for yourself instead of blindly believing anectodal evidence? Just a thought.

For example, a small bottle of nitroglycerine will cause a lot of damage... usually to someone foolish enough walk around with the stuff in his/her hat or garments due to nitroglycerine being highly unstable and likely to detonate spontaneously at body temperature or when agitated (like walking around with an unpadded bottle).

Investigate these conjectures. Don't blindly believe "security" statements, especially if they come from proven liars, like the TSA.

I personally don't care. If they are wearing something metal underneath it, the metal detector should pick it up.

That was my thought. What exactly do they hope to find underneath a turban?

Another brilliant TSA move.

How long before we are all strip searched and our body cavaties x-rayed before boarding an aircraft?

What in the world does this have to do with two fundamental facts:

1) The x-ray does not detect explosives

2) The puffer does

:confused:

The only 'rules' in question here are the laws of physics which the TSA not only doesn't understand, but actually goes out of its way to contradict.


My point was as BAD as the TSA is Unfortunately there is a NEED for Security checks and even for having to ask a Religious Married Jewish Woman or Sikh Gentleman who NEED to cover their hair according to their religious beliefs to let someone check to make that its only their hair under whatever it is that is covering the hair.

OK TSA is a laughing circus but I do remember that before there was a TSA that we were bashing whatever Security checks there was. So we went from Bashing what was to bashing TSA , believe me if we went back to Private screening we'd be back Bashing those private screeners in no time as well.

That was my thought. What exactly do they hope to find underneath a turban?

A bunch of long hair? Which someone would still be able to conceal things in if they liked.

Are people with dreadlocks going to get scalp searched in the name of security?

My point was as BAD as the TSA is Unfortunately there is a NEED for Security checks and even for having to ask a Religious Married Jewish Woman or Sikh Gentleman who NEED to cover their hair according to their religious beliefs to let someone check to make that its only their hair under whatever it is that is covering the hair.


But it makes no sense - if they are trying to smuggle onboard something that is metal, it should be picked up by the metal detectors. What will they find, a 3.2oz bottle under a turban? Give me a break. How about the fact that baggy jeans the kids wear these days provide MUCH more "hiding space"?

My point was as BAD as the TSA is Unfortunately there is a NEED for Security checks

No one here claimed there wasn't. Why did you infer that people wanted to eliminate security checks? :confused:

OK TSA is a laughing circus but I do remember that before there was a TSA that we were bashing whatever Security checks there was. So we went from Bashing what was to bashing TSA , believe me if we went back to Private screening we'd be back Bashing those private screeners in no time as well.

Private screeners did not destroy people's civil liberties and were just as effective as the filthy Communist organization known as the TSA. We have the capability to effectively and unobtrousively screen passengers, but that will not happen until our airports are rid of the cancer called "TSA" and are staffed with private security firms with accountability for their actions - no more laughing stock "security". No more senseless harassment and destruction of civil liberties, and best of all, real security at airports at a reasonable price.

Destroy the TSA today!

No one here claimed there wasn't. Why did you infer that people wanted to eliminate security checks? :confused:



Private screeners did not destroy people's civil liberties and were just as effective as the filthy Communist organization known as the TSA. We have the capability to effectively and unobtrousively screen passengers, but that will not happen until our airports are rid of the cancer called "TSA" and are staffed with private security firms with accountability for their actions - no more laughing stock "security". No more senseless harassment and destruction of civil liberties, and best of all, real security at airports at a reasonable price.

Destroy the TSA today!

Sound like you're still on the fence regarding the TSA and its abilities.
<Enormous sarcastic smiley face here >

No more senseless harassment and destruction of civil liberties, and best of all, real security at airports at a reasonable price.



On this I agree 1000% wth you

The covering of a Married Jewish womans hair is NOT a custom but is a Law. a man is suppose to have his head covered at all times NOT his hair. While a married woman is suppose to have her hair covered, so although many do so its not really correct that wearing a baseball cap with her hair in a say a pony-tail, as that will suffice for a man who needs to have a head covering not a hair covering, but NOT for a woman.

So a Religious Jewish woman and a Sikh male are in the same exact boat for the same reason, that of not allowing ones actual hair to be seen in public.
Don't forget about Muslim women wearing a hijab or burka. I'd have to say this is more similar to the turban than a religious Jew covering hair. Why? Because the racial profilers haven't been going after Jewish people as far as I've noticed (not saying they are totally immune), but Muslims, Arabs, Persians, East Indians do seem to have a hit out for them. I was in line behind a muslim family and the tone of the TSA agents was quite different towards them than towards WASPy looking pax. The women were wearing a hijab and were subject to an additional pat down (even though they did not set off the metal detector). The pat down was done in front of everyone else. I'm not sure if they were offered to go to a private setting. I just heard "come over here, I need to pat you down".

Racial profiling is not correct. Sikh is a religion of tolerance and peace. Not a single bomber has been a Sikh. Granted, non-Sikhs wear turbans also, but that doesn't mean all turban wearers are suspect.

The covering of a Married Jewish womans hair is NOT a custom but is a Law.

...

So a Religious Jewish woman and a Sikh male are in the same exact boat for the same reason, that of not allowing ones actual hair to be seen in public.

don't want to get into this, but this is apparently a matter of debate. orthodox jews will tend to wear/require a headcovering, but it seems conservative and reformed jews tend to view it as a non-requirement and done more for modesty's sake than pentateuchal law. i guess if you're orthodox, it would be equivalent to a sikh male's use of a turban.

do TSO's also require the removal of burkas? i'd guess not, but then, this is the TSA we're talking about.

OK TSA is a laughing circus but I do remember that before there was a TSA that we were bashing whatever Security checks there was. So we went from Bashing what was to bashing TSA , believe me if we went back to Private screening we'd be back Bashing those private screeners in no time as well.

My recollection is that there were almost zero Flyertalk threads complaining about airport security prior to September 11, 2001. None. After that, of course, the ridiculous policies enacted by Moron Mineta and the various morons at the TSA caused numerous complaints.

Airport screening had nothing to do with the hijackers' "successes" of September 11, 2001, and most of the policies enacted in its wake do nothing more than harrass the American Public.

Don't forget about Muslim women wearing a hijab or burka. I'd have to say this is more similar to the turban than a religious Jew covering hair. Why? Because the racial profilers haven't been going after Jewish people as far as I've noticed (not saying they are totally immune), but Muslims, Arabs, Persians, East Indians do seem to have a hit out for them. I was in line behind a muslim family and the tone of the TSA agents was quite different towards them than towards WASPy looking pax. The women were wearing a hijab and were subject to an additional pat down (even though they did not set off the metal detector). The pat down was done in front of everyone else. I'm not sure if they were offered to go to a private setting. I just heard "come over here, I need to pat you down".

Racial profiling is not correct. Sikh is a religion of tolerance and peace. Not a single bomber has been a Sikh. Granted, non-Sikhs wear turbans also, but that doesn't mean all turban wearers are suspect.

well thats the problem in a Nut shell. Israel as well as Europe do use Profiling as their means to determine who needs further checking out. If you dont want to Profile people and dont want to check those with head-coverings etc etc, then we might as well well get rid of any and all Security checks.

Its the old story, Cops shouldnt be armed, and back when even the FBI wasnt as they are today and have been. Well if those who were up to no good werent then the Cops wouldnt have to be either.

So let me hear your Great Plan if we elimimate Profiling and Checks how do you think a Secure System can be put into place? Maybe simply ask anyone who is going to fly, Are you planning to Hijack this plane ? They say No Ok you may fly, after all what person would LIE about such a thing. And after all who are we to question someone if they say they arent up to anything, then again Do we even have the right to question Everyone and ask them if they are up to no good. Nope No questions should be asked at all, if a person wants to fly let me and we will see how good everyone elses prays Help.

...Racial profiling is not correct. Sikh is a religion of tolerance and peace. Not a single bomber has been a Sikh. Granted, non-Sikhs wear turbans also, but that doesn't mean all turban wearers are suspect.IF, and that's a huge IF, a turban were a practical way to get nasty stuff past security, and turbans were immune from searches, the apparent Sikh population of the U.S. would go way up - mostly not with terrorists, but with law-abiding folks who don't want to be hassled over water bottles. Terrorists would know about this too, though, so saying that Sikhs are unlikely terrorists (even if correct, which I believe it is) misses the point.

However, as previously posted, anything that will fit in a turban will also fit into the pocket of cargo pants or any other number of acceptable items of clothing - so what is the point in this? Just more security theater, IMHO. Not more security.

My recollection is that there were almost zero Flyertalk threads complaining about airport security prior to September 11, 2001. None. After that, of course, the ridiculous policies enacted by Moron Mineta and the various morons at the TSA caused numerous complaints.

Airport screening had nothing to do with the hijackers' "successes" of September 11, 2001, and most of the policies enacted in its wake do nothing more than harrass the American Public.


You cant complain about what didnt exist.

I guess the B-787 is a GREAT plane , after all I didnt read even 1 negative complaint about it, the fact that its not flying isnt important.

About the only Security that was being done was in regards to Flights to TLV.

IF, and that's a huge IF, a turban were a practical way to get nasty stuff past security, and turbans were immune from searches, the apparent Sikh population of the U.S. would go way up - not with terrorists, but with law-abiding folks who don't want to be hassled over water bottles.

However, as previously posted, anything that will fit in a turban will also fit into the pocket of cargo pants or any other number of acceptable items of clothing - so what is the point in this? Just more security theater, IMHO. Not more security.

Those baggy pants are a great way to transport drugs or $$$ out of or into any country, all 1 needs to do is tape them to ones legs, forget about the pockets!

well thats the problem in a Nut shell. Israel as well as Europe do use Profiling as their means to determine who needs further checking out. If you dont want to Profile people and dont want to check those with head-coverings etc etc, then we might as well well get rid of any and all Security checks.

I don't understand your conclusion at all.

Profiling is bad. However, your premise that checking head-coverings by removing them is faulty. There already exists at least 2 ways of doing so - the puffer and the ETD "wand". Why does using these proven devices instead of disgusting, senseless harassment mean that we're 'getting rid of any and all Security checks', as you so quaintly put it? :confused:

And for that matter, why did you capitalize the word 'security'? :confused: :confused:



So let me hear your Great Plan if we elimimate Profiling and Checks how do you think a Secure System can be put into place? Maybe simply ask anyone who is going to fly, Are you planning to Hijack this plane ? They say No Ok you may fly, after all what person would LIE about such a thing. And after all who are we to question someone if they say they arent up to anything, then again Do we even have the right to question Everyone and ask them if they are up to no good. Nope No questions should be asked at all, if a person wants to fly let me and we will see how good everyone elses prays Help.

At the moment, anyone can bring explosives past the checkpoint at will. If you put explosives in you pants or person, they will not be found. So, the TSA might as well ask the inane question you've posted or just put up 'No Terrorism, Please." signs.

Here is the 'great plan':

Use the puffer to detect explosives, not the x-ray.

Do you need a clearer plan?

Here is the 'great plan':

Use the puffer to detect explosives, not the x-ray.

Do you need a clearer plan?

Actually x-ray is not correct as we dont walk thru an x-ray machine but our carry-on does goes thru 1. What we do we walk thru is for detecting Metal objects, so thats why the lotion to prevent dryness that I carry in my pants pockets doesnt get caught since its a plastic bottle.

So for now the question is can a person conceal a non-metallic object that can bring down an aircraft within their head covering, or for that matter in baggy pants or taped onto ones legs and concealed due to baggy pants.

Of cause a major problem is that Sikhs are probably taken as being Moslem, thats why a number of them were attacked after 9-11 in Queens,NY. dont know the last time a Jewish Religious Woman tried to take down an aircraft, yet I understand if they want in Private to make sure that that woman has nothing but her own hair under whatever hair(head)covering that it is she is wearing and that she is being checked by a Female TSA member. So too if they want to check a Sikh that it should be done in Private by a male TSA member.As for a Female Muslim also in Private by a woman TSA member.

Now I am NOT saying that Every single Jewish Religious Woman or Male Sikh or Female Muslim should automatically be checked. But if at times they are to be then theres nothing wrong with it and it should be done so in Private in order to prevent that persons hair from being revealed in Public

Wanted to add, there are Plenty of Muslim women walking around Israel with their head coverings, Ive never seen where they are simply asked to take it off to make sure there isnt anything under it. I would imagine if they are flying out of TLV that they would be checked Only if something else triggers it, as TLV doesnt go after appearance but rather after a certain Profile selection , yes a Muslim passenger will get a more detailed questioning, but if they pass it then they pass it. And yes, I have traveled out of TLV where the people ahead of me were Arab were questioned alot more then I was but were cleared then and there , OK my bags didnt go thru the X-ray machine while theirs did but I saw them take their bags on the other side of the x-ray machine and proceeded to the check-in counter. Ive also seen in the past where they asked the party to follow them to a secure area for further questioning or checking.

Actually x-ray is not correct as we dont walk thru an x-ray machine but our carry-on does goes thru 1. What we do we walk thru is for detecting Metal objects, so thats why the lotion to prevent dryness that I carry in my pants pockets doesnt get caught since its a plastic bottle.

So for now the question is can a person conceal a non-metallic object that can bring down an aircraft within their head covering, or for that matter in baggy pants or taped onto ones legs and concealed due to baggy pants.

Of cause a major problem is that Sikhs are probably taken as being Moslem, thats why a number of them were attacked after 9-11 in Queens,NY. dont know the last time a Jewish Religious Woman tried to take down an aircraft, yet I understand if they want in Private to make sure that that woman has nothing but her own hair under whatever hair(head)covering that it is she is wearing and that she is being checked by a Female TSA member. So too if they want to check a Sikh that it should be done in Private by a male TSA member.As for a Female Muslim also in Private by a woman TSA member.

Now I am NOT saying that Every single Jewish Religious Woman or Male Sikh or Female Muslim should automatically be checked. But if at times they are to be then theres nothing wrong with it and it should be done so in Private in order to prevent that persons hair from being revealed in Public

Apparently, I am not being clear:

The puffer detects explosives. It is the big machine that puffs air on a passenger for about 7-10 seconds while they stand in the machine.

The WTMD does not detect explosives. It detects metals, or more precisely, metals that alter the field of the WTMD.

Wrong way to screen head gear and all other clothing: strip search (remove) the person in public or in private. The clothing in question is put into the x-ray which does not detect explosives.

Right way to screen head gear and all other clothing: USE THE PUFFER. There is no reason for anyone to remove any article of clothing in public or in private. The puffer effectively screens for explosives without harassing the passenger by forcing them to strip, followed by a disgusting groping.

Does this help/clarify? It's not about religion, racism, whatever. No one should have to remove anything or be touched because the means to effectively screen for explosives exists.

Apparently, I am not being clear:

The puffer detects explosives. It is the big machine that puffs air on a passenger for about 7-10 seconds while they stand in the machine.

The WTMD does not detect explosives. It detects metals, or more precisely, metals that alter the field of the WTMD.

Wrong way to screen head gear and all other clothing: strip search (remove) the person in public or in private. The clothing in question is put into the x-ray which does not detect explosives.

Right way to screen head gear and all other clothing: USE THE PUFFER. There is no reason for anyone to remove any article of clothing in public or in private. The puffer effectively screens for explosives without harassing the passenger by forcing them to strip, followed by a disgusting groping.

Does this help/clarify? It's not about religion, racism, whatever. No one should have to remove anything or be touched because the means to effectively screen for explosives exists.

Got you, except I dont live in a cave and fly alot and can at this time never recall going thru what you call a puffer machine, I fly out of EWR,LGA,PHL,LAX,FLL,LAS so its not like Im flying out of FAT. Unless those machines are in fact puffers and I never knew it. I know they beep if they detect metal but never felt a puff of air or heard any.

I have heard of these machines but I didnt think every machine is 1 and that every Airport has 1. So if a person does in fact walk thru 1 and its suppose to work as you say it does, so I will Agree with You, if a person does NOT walk thru a puffer then I Understand the Potential need for further checking

i think spiff's point (correct me if i'm wrong) is that puffers effectively detect the presence of explosives, but are not being utilized by the TSA, which opts for the clunky and intrusive "let's add restriction upon restriction of illusory security until we border on, or in some case infringe upon, the rights of citizens without actually making anyone significantly safer" approach.

My religion forbids me to take off my shoes in public places. When will the TSA stop violating my religion? :mad:

Got you, except I dont live in a cave and fly alot and can at this time never recall going thru what you call a puffer machine, I fly out of EWR,LGA,PHL,LAX,FLL,LAS so its not like Im flying out of FAT. Unless those machines are in fact puffers and I never knew it. I know they beep if they detect metal but never felt a puff of air or heard any.

I have heard of these machines but I didnt think every machine is 1 and that every Airport has 1. So if a person does in fact walk thru 1 and its suppose to work as you say it does, so I will Agree with You, if a person does NOT walk thru a puffer then I Understand the Potential need for further checking

The TSA can and should deploy these machines at all airports.

Instead, the TSA has chosen to stop using them in most cases at airports where they have already been deployed.

It's this ineffective, backward-thinking (or thinking at all?) idiocy that is one of the many reasons to destroy the TSA quickly and permanently.

Airport screening had nothing to do with the hijackers' "successes" of September 11, 2001, and most of the policies enacted in its wake do nothing more than harrass the American Public.Perhaps if we say this enough times the sheeple will finally get the message...

That was my thought. What exactly do they hope to find underneath a turban?

Another brilliant TSA move.

How long before we are all strip searched and our body cavaties x-rayed before boarding an aircraft?

A comb. It's not a metal comb, but a wooden one. It's about two inches or less wide. A comb is as much a sreligious requirement as not cutting hair is.

Don't forget about Muslim women wearing a hijab or burka. I'd have to say this is more similar to the turban than a religious Jew covering hair. Why? Because the racial profilers haven't been going after Jewish people as far as I've noticed (not saying they are totally immune), but Muslims, Arabs, Persians, East Indians do seem to have a hit out for them. I was in line behind a muslim family and the tone of the TSA agents was quite different towards them than towards WASPy looking pax. The women were wearing a hijab and were subject to an additional pat down (even though they did not set off the metal detector). The pat down was done in front of everyone else. I'm not sure if they were offered to go to a private setting. I just heard "come over here, I need to pat you down".

Racial profiling is not correct. Sikh is a religion of tolerance and peace. Not a single bomber has been a Sikh. Granted, non-Sikhs wear turbans also, but that doesn't mean all turban wearers are suspect.

I agree with most of your comments except the bolded one. I have known many sikhs, some are even related to me, by marriage. None of the ones I know has been involved in any kind of terrorism activity.. Yet, AI 182 was brought down by a bomb in luggage reported to have been checked by a Sikh in 1985. There were no survivors. The flight took off from Montreal and was headed to LHR. Another bomb was placed in luggage on a Canadian Pacific flight the same day meant to be transfered to an Air India flight departing Tokyo, but exploded prematurely in the luggage hold area of Narita. This is reported linked to a Sikh also.

The days of Sikh terrorism are gone though. Their target was Indian Government and its assets, not American people or the US Govt.

What next, a yarmulke? (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yarmulke)

It's only about 1/16th of an inch thick, but hey, "you can't be too careful." :td:

What next, a yarmulke? (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yarmulke)

It's only about 1/16th of an inch thick, but hey, "you can't be too careful." :td:Don't mention this to the TSA. Next thing you know we'll have a regulation on maximum fabric thickness of headgear, both total and per ply.

The days of Sikh terrorism are gone though.

Oh, how comforting to know that ALL Sikh's are no longer terrorists....even though you admit SOME were.., and with a history of BLOWING UP airliners.....

Yeah, we need to cut you guys a break....give ME a break!

Oh, how comforting to know that ALL Sikh's are no longer terrorists....even though you admit SOME were.., and with a history of BLOWING UP airliners.....

Yeah, we need to cut you guys a break....give ME a break!

Good thing there have never been any American and/or Christian terrorists. :rolleyes:

Good thing there have never been any American and/or Christian terrorists

.....and the point is???? If you are a Christian and refuse to take off your shoes be prepared to ride Amtrak, ditto for Sikhs refusing to remove turbans.

Of course, we COULD have NO security, just issue everyone a S&W .44 mag and "have a nice day"....hmmmm, might work! You light your shoe or turban and BAM!, end of problem....

.....and the point is???? If you are a Christian and refuse to take off your shoes be prepared to ride Amtrak, ditto for Sikhs refusing to remove turbans.

Of course, we COULD have NO security, just issue everyone a S&W .44 mag and "have a nice day"....hmmmm, might work! You light your shoe or turban and BAM!, end of problem....

Your post is truly inane.

Who, other than you, advocated no security? :confused:

We all need to fight back against stupid "security" and those responsible for forcing this idiocy on the traveling public.

.....and the point is???? If you are a Christian and refuse to take off your shoes be prepared to ride Amtrak, ditto for Sikhs refusing to remove turbans.

Of course, we COULD have NO security, just issue everyone a S&W .44 mag and "have a nice day"....hmmmm, might work! You light your shoe or turban and BAM!, end of problem....

The comments are hateful and irrelevant. I choose not to respond to them.

that is one of the many reasons to destroy the TSA quickly and permanently.

Who, other than you, advocated no security?



Duhh??? Looks like you did...........and btw, the .44 mag idea was just a suggestion after you destroy TSA "quickly and permanently"

No one here claimed there wasn't. Why did you infer that people wanted to eliminate security checks? :confused:



Private screeners did not destroy people's civil liberties and were just as effective as the filthy Communist organization known as the TSA. We have the capability to effectively and unobtrousively screen passengers, but that will not happen until our airports are rid of the cancer called "TSA" and are staffed with private security firms with accountability for their actions - no more laughing stock "security". No more senseless harassment and destruction of civil liberties, and best of all, real security at airports at a reasonable price.

Destroy the TSA today!

Could someone please buy Spiff a 'puffer' for xmas? The poor lad sounds like he could explode at any moment himself :(... and we need him keep the world safe for Democracy !!:rolleyes:

Nuts. You can't hide a weapon or explosive inside "black, Arab, or Muslim." You can hide it inside a turban. And if this policy fails I'll claim Sikh and carry my bottled water and shampoo in my new stars-and-stripes-design turban.

This whole security thing, while already ridiculous and ineffective, is turning into nothing but one big politicized joke.

PS: I like Sikhs and hate TSA too. But this playing the race/religion card has to stop.

If you knew anything about turbans, you would know that a turban is made of tightly wound material. Other than your head, there is no room for anything in there. It's obvious just by looking at one.

Unfortunately the other side looking to inflict harm isnt playing by the rules in your book, nor are they any time likely to do so.


Absolutely right, completely in agreement with you. Robbing people of their land and dignity, dropping american made cluster bombs designed specifically to attract children, murdering children who dare to look out of their windows after being forced into starvation by week long curfews and military blockades, murdering people that need medical care immediately by letting them bleed to death, forcing people through all these means to ffight back in the only manner someone who has lost all dignity has left - yes - it's not playing by the rules and it unfortunately is not about to change any time soon. I pray everything you and I described here does change.

Duhh??? Looks like you did...........and btw, the .44 mag idea was just a suggestion after you destroy TSA "quickly and permanently"
no, he advocates getting rid of the TSA, not doing away with airport security. there is a difference.

The days of Sikh terrorism are gone though. Their target was Indian Government and its assets, not American people or the US Govt.

Hence the comment about there not being a single Sikh terrorist ;)

Could someone please buy Spiff a 'puffer' for xmas? The poor lad sounds like he could explode at any moment himself :(... and we need him keep the world safe for Democracy !!:rolleyes:

The puffer seems to throw up more false alarms than anything else. I have a problem with that and have refused to go through it every time I have been requested to do so (The most unreliable one I have seen is at SFO T3)

Oh, how comforting to know that ALL Sikh's are no longer terrorists....even though you admit SOME were.., and with a history of BLOWING UP airliners.....

Yeah, we need to cut you guys a break....give ME a break!

Oh dear, they are all coming out of the woodwork today aren't they? Is it Klan remembrance day or something?

Now, you sound like you might be an expert on global terrorism, so I have to ask, when you say "you guys", do you mean all Sikhs? And in your vast knowlege base of Sikh attrocities worldwide, which I'm sure is only basically what Yaatri posted above, do you have anything on what the political climate was like at the time of the airliner bombing Yaatri referred to?

I ask this because really, people like Bader Meinhoff (you can google that), the IRA (no, it's not like a 401K), Red Brigade (not a kids show), Animal Liberation Front (Google it) and the Lords Liberation Army (The one in Uganda when you finally get to google it) and your very own assorted american white supremacists were all Christians. You should be giving me a break when I see all these Christians waltzing through checkpoints without undergoing secondary screening. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

What next, a yarmulke? (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yarmulke)

It's only about 1/16th of an inch thick, but hey, "you can't be too careful." :td:


I understand that the Yarmulke is not included in the list of headcoverings the TSA wants removed.

Robbing ........


what the Hay are you smoking????

Your post is pure .... , maybe try staying on topic.

what the Hay are you smoking????

Your post is pure .... , maybe try staying on topic.

Look in the mirror mate.

The days of Sikh terrorism are gone though. Their target was Indian Government and its assets, not American people or the US Govt.

Ohhh, so the target, a few hundred innocent Indians (and Europeans, Americans, etc,) on the Air India flight were Indian Government assets....sorry, but you can't justify the blowing up of ANY airliner, period.

Your response is pitiful...try looking into your soul and picture yourself or your family on any flight where terrorists blow up the plane....no justification on earth exists.

God help you.

My religion forbids me to take off my shoes in public places. When will the TSA stop violating my religion? :mad:

It's a copycat religious requirement. ;)

If you knew anything about turbans, you would know that a turban is made of tightly wound material. Other than your head, there is no room for anything in there. It's obvious just by looking at one.

How do you know there isn't enough room in his.... head that is. :p

Ohhh, so the target, a few hundred innocent Indians (and Europeans, Americans, etc,) on the Air India flight were Indian Government assets....sorry, but you can't justify the blowing up of ANY airliner, period.

Your response is pitiful...try looking into your soul and picture yourself or your family on any flight where terrorists blow up the plane....no justification on earth exists.

God help you.
I never called people assets of the Indian Govt. You are the one who has interpreted my words to mean that.

If you are worried about a US ailiner taking off frim a US airport being hijacked chnaces are that the largest percentage of those passengers will have nothing to do with Indian Govt its policies or assets. Hence, even if sikh terrorits were active they would pose no danger to US airliners.

By the way US congressman Dan Burton, has been a major supporter of the Council of Khalistan. Pro Khalistan groups were the ones responsible for sikh terrorsim in India. Guess who else supports Khalistan? Pakistan, the phony front line aly in the war on terror. Some other prominent US supporters of Khalistan are 5 term US Senator Jesse Helms and another congressman Edolphus Towns from New York.

Should India declare war on the U.S. for supporting terrorist organsiations? I know what your response is going to be.

Fortunately Khalistan related terrorist groups are well contained, no thanks to the U.S.
Before you start spewing your hatred against Muslims or Sikhs it would be best to examine the contribution your Governemnt has made to terrorism.

Shall

Good thing there have never been any American and/or Christian terrorists. :rolleyes:

Just to name a few, looks like you have never heard of Eric Robert Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols. How sad.

Just to name a few, looks like you have never heard of Eric Robert Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols. How sad.

Seems like you are new here. You failed to get his (Spiff's) sarcasm.

The TSA might as well check underwear if they are going to check turbans or baseball caps. The reasoning to check one is applicable to checking the other too.

TSA idiocy.

The TSA might as well check underwear if they are going to check turbans or baseball caps. The reasoning to check one is applicable to checking the other too.

TSA idiocy.

I am sure some of the TSA employees would love to.

I am sure some of the TSA employees would love to.


My Sikh neighbour was asking me about turbans and airport security yesterday. I told him that Americans had basically decided to disregard the religious rights of Sikhs and would begin physically removing their turbans at security checkpoints. His reply in Punjabi ran something along the lines of, and I'm paraphrasing... What do they hope to find in there? a certain private body part belonging to their sister? (you have to know Punjabi to really appreciate the comment).

My Sikh neighbour was asking me about turbans and airport security yesterday. I told him that Americans had basically decided to disregard the religious rights of Sikhs and would begin physically removing their turbans at security checkpoints. His reply in Punjabi ran something along the lines of, and I'm paraphrasing... What do they hope to find in there? a certain private body part belonging to their sister? (you have to know Punjabi to really appreciate the comment).

I think I got it. Something like Pehn di ....ddi. Right?

If you are a Christian and refuse to take off your shoes be prepared to ride Amtrak, ditto for Sikhs refusing to remove turbans.

Just out of curiosity, donsig, which Christian denomination are you thinking of that (you believe) requires its adherents to wear shoes whenever they're in public as a matter of religious faith?

Unless you can name one your analogy is not germane.

I think I got it. Something like Pehn di ....ddi. Right?

That'd be the one :D

Unless you can name one your analogy is not germane


Geez, this is not that hard, guy. My point is WHATEVER religion, sex, color, sexual preference, occupation, etc. etc. - IF YOU BOARD AN AIRPLANE AND REFUSE TO BE INSPECTED, YOU SHOULD NOT FLY.

Now, my religion, "The Church of What's Happening Now", requires me to where both my shoes and a turban. TSA won't let me on da plane, so what do I do?

Ride Amtrak. Or, take off the turban and the shoes. GET THE POINT????????

Whew.

Geez, this is not that hard, guy. My point is WHATEVER religion, sex, color, sexual preference, occupation, etc. etc. - IF YOU BOARD AN AIRPLANE AND REFUSE TO BE INSPECTED, YOU SHOULD NOT FLY.

Ahhh.. "Inspected". Cute. What happens when the assclowns (no pun intended. ;) ) decide to actually do something about the FACT that anyone can take explosives past the checkpoint in their pants or in their behind? Will you so willingly submit to a cavity inspection, as part of the "INSPECTION" as you put it?

Now, my religion, "The Church of What's Happening Now", requires me to where both my shoes and a turban. TSA won't let me on da plane, so what do I do?

Ride Amtrak. Or, take off the turban and the shoes. GET THE POINT????????


No, tough guy, I don't.

Screw the TSA. No one should have to remove their shoes, their underwear (hello! let's not forget "buttbombs"!), or their turbans.

The puffer, aka, the IonScan Sentinel II makes removal of any of the above unnecessary and downright offensive - not on any religious level, but because it's insulting to anyone who understands material science, engineering, chemistry, etc.

Geez, this is not that hard, guy. My point is WHATEVER religion, sex, color, sexual preference, occupation, etc. etc. - IF YOU BOARD AN AIRPLANE AND REFUSE TO BE INSPECTED, YOU SHOULD NOT FLY.

Now, my religion, "The Church of What's Happening Now", requires me to where both my shoes and a turban. TSA won't let me on da plane, so what do I do?

Ride Amtrak. Or, take off the turban and the shoes. GET THE POINT????????

Whew.

No. Perhaps those who are willing to submit to taking off their underwear, for the same "reason", will "GET THE POINT".

Geez, this is not that hard, guy. My point is WHATEVER religion, sex, color, sexual preference, occupation, etc. etc. - IF YOU BOARD AN AIRPLANE AND REFUSE TO BE INSPECTED, YOU SHOULD NOT FLY.

Now, my religion, "The Church of What's Happening Now", requires me to where both my shoes and a turban. TSA won't let me on da plane, so what do I do?

Ride Amtrak. Or, take off the turban and the shoes. GET THE POINT????????

Whew.

No, donsig, I don't "get the point", no matter how many question marks you use.

Do you get the point that (in my opinion) what you're willing to let the government do in restricting the religious freedoms of other Americans -- and YOUR OWN religious freedoms, whether you choose to exercise them or not -- is both unconstitutional and un-American.

You may be willing to give up your civil liberties.

Others are not.

You may be willing to give up your civil liberties.

OK, you all win. Let's eliminate TSA, issue S&W .45's at the gate and call it a day. Nobody has their civil liberties stomped on, everybody is armed, ready to prevent a hijacking. Makes sense to me.

OK, you all win. Let's eliminate TSA, issue S&W .45's at the gate and call it a day. Nobody has their civil liberties stomped on, everybody is armed, ready to prevent a hijacking. Makes sense to me.

Another non-sequitur. It really seems like you're free-associating in this thread, rather than putting some effort into the discussion.

Let's take it really slowly...

DESTROYING the TSA and REPLACING the TSA with private security firms that have ACCOUNTABILITY for their actions and procedures is NOT the same as having NO security. It is also NOT the same as ISSUING FIREARMS TO PASSENGERS.

Now, I'd be happy to draw you a picture, but the the graphics capabilities of this software leave a little to be desired. So, I'm going with speaking slowly and loudly for clarity. I hope this helps. ;)

I agree with most of your comments except the bolded one. I have known many sikhs, some are even related to me, by marriage. None of the ones I know has been involved in any kind of terrorism activity.. Yet, AI 182 was brought down by a bomb in luggage reported to have been checked by a Sikh in 1985. There were no survivors. The flight took off from Montreal and was headed to LHR. Another bomb was placed in luggage on a Canadian Pacific flight the same day meant to be transfered to an Air India flight departing Tokyo, but exploded prematurely in the luggage hold area of Narita. This is reported linked to a Sikh also.

The days of Sikh terrorism are gone though. Their target was Indian Government and its assets, not American people or the US Govt.

First of all, those attacks were "reportedly" linked to Sikhs....Those Sikhs that were on trial have now been let free and acquitted of all charges, because these attacks were not done by them. So are no incidents of Sikhs putting bombs on planes ....

Oh, how comforting to know that ALL Sikh's are no longer terrorists....even though you admit SOME were.., and with a history of BLOWING UP airliners.....

Yeah, we need to cut you guys a break....give ME a break!

So your telling me that no white christian/catholic person has never committed a terrorist attack. The ones that have occured in the US, for example Oklahoma City Bombing, is quite a big deal. You dont see the rest of the world, or any other ethnicities pointing fingers at all white christian/catholic people saying there terrorists....so how can you make a judgement on an entire community, based on one person?????????

First of all, those attacks were "reportedly" linked to Sikhs....Those Sikhs that were on trial have now been let free and acquitted of all charges, because these attacks were not done by them. So are no incidents of Sikhs putting bombs on planes ....

Then tell us who bombed that plane for which they were put on trial.

In any case this whole "turban check" is just another wasteful exercise that is part of the TSA dog and pony show. That plane wasn't brought down by a bomb in someone's turban. And even if a bomb were to be brought on board in someone's turban, it could just as well be brought on board inside someone's underwear. That is why this whole dog and pony show, stupid turban check or not, is a farce. The TSA and CATSA logic would justify sticking their hands down underwear and inside body cavities, anal and vaginal, yet they don't dare do that. Instead they obsess stupidly over headgear. What about wigs? What about toupees? What about bandages on the head? Are they all to come off too? Why not?

So your telling me that no white christian/catholic person has never committed a terrorist attack. The ones that have occured in the US, for example Oklahoma City Bombing, is quite a big deal. You dont see the rest of the world, or any other ethnicities pointing fingers at all white christian/catholic people saying there terrorists....so how can you make a judgement on an entire community, based on one person?????????

Such a judgement is better known as racism or prejudice, but so many seem willing to forget that little fact because of "terror". :rolleyes:

Welcome to FlyerTalk! :)

That plane wasn't brought down by a bomb in someone's turban. And even if a bomb were to be brought on board in someone's turban, it could just as well be brought on board inside someone's underwear.

Quite right. Targetting someone just because of their religious affiliation does nothing to improve perceived security threats.

Then tell us who bombed that plane for which they were put on trial.

That i do not know, but it was not the 2 Sikh men, as they were acquitted of all charges .. Theres many people who may be involved in this from what I have heard, some people say its the Indian government who had set up the whole conspiracy ... Lots of Sikhs in India were killed innocently in 1984 in New Delhi after the assassination of Indira Gandhi ... It was said that there was reasons for the Indian government to supposedly have a hand in the Air India bombing

That i do not know, but it was not the 2 Sikh men, as they were acquitted of all charges .. Theres many people who may be involved in this from what I have heard, some people say its the Indian government who had set up the whole conspiracy ... Lots of Sikhs in India were killed innocently in 1984 in New Delhi after the assassination of Indira Gandhi ... It was said that there was reasons for the Indian government to supposedly have a hand in the Air India bombing

I am aware that many innocent Sikhs were killed in 1984 in New Delhi and also other parts of India. It was an awful day and the people who instigated those anti-Sikh communal riots, like the thugs killing Sikhs on the streets themselves that day, should have been brought to justice but sadly were not -- most got away with it because the political will to investigate and prosecute was not there. For some time, the police basically did nothing to intervene even as innocent Sikhs were being chased by armed mobs. A very dark chapter without a doubt.

That said, the Indian government is lousy about keeping secrets, so I will dismiss the conspiracy theory that the Indian government orchestrated that bombing. If India's RAW or other government actors tried to bomb an Indian plane, it would have been all over the news by now or at least made the rounds in some circles. By the way, I discuss the conspiracy theory knowing full well that RAW has a number of communalists, anti-Sikh communalists at that, in the rank and file and also in the management. I am saying that RAW, IB and CBI have some rogues there too, but they have loud mouths. This is why I would be hard pressed to buy into the idea that the Indian government blew up an Air India plane.

Sikhs welcome US decision not to take off turbans at airports

http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/6136/92/

WASHINGTON: Sikhs have welcomed the steps taken by the TSA authorities to correct the policy of indiscriminate screening of Turbans at the airports. The United States’ Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced an adjustment of its screening policies for headwear which included Turbans.

That's the beauty of the US - a secular country where the law protects all religious beliefs and practices equally (within limits).

I might be wrong concerning the Sikhs, but I do believe that for a Male Shikh to remove his Turban and have his hair revealed in public is like a Married Religious Jewish woman doing the same. True alot of religious Jewish women wear a wig that at times looks a like better then their real hair, so Im sure those working the check-points dont know that , but many do wear hats or scarves. So the Sikhs dont have a leg to stand on since Religious Jewish women have to go thru the samething.

the answer is if TSA wants to do a Check then the person should be brought into a closed room where a person of the same Sex checks them. If a person doesnt want to be checked even by someone of the same Sex , thats fine, Do NOT fly.

What you're referring to is known as private screening. It is available to anyone who requests it whether it's screening of the person or their property.

Under certain circumstances, TSOs must offer private screening:

Whenever the screening process requires the removal of any type of headwear.

Whenever a full-body pat-down is conducted in lieu of metal detection screening.

Whenever the TSO is required to pat-down a sensitive area (crotch, buttocks for men and women; breast area for women).

Whenever a religious item has to be inspected and doing so in a public area is considered a violation of religious beliefs/principles.


However, as I stated, these are not the only times private screening is conducted. It is conducted any time a passenger requests it. Common instances are, for example:

if someone has high-value property (such as jewelry dealers) and does not want that revealed in public

if someone is willing to disclose having a personal body piercing to explain why something alarmed, but does not want to disclose that in front of traveling companions (daughters traveling with parents, businessmen traveling with clients, etc.).

A lot of this can be resolved with good communication. And while TSA tries to increase cultural awareness through its training programs, it still helps if the passenger identifies certain cultural/religious items to the TSO. For example, I screened a gentleman who moved a chain necklace from underneath his shirt and exposed it. He explained that it was a religious item and asked that I not touch it. When it alarmed, I asked him to move it to the side so that I could clear the area. And while he certainly wasn't happy about undergoing the screening process, he did express appreciation that I respected his religious sensitivities.

This is certainly a contentious issue not only for Sikhs but for any group whose beliefs require the wearing of certain headwear. The challenge is to train TSOs how to exercise sound judgment whenever someone clears the walk-thru metal detector yet may be concealing a non-metallic item that could be an explosive or other non-metallic weapon. The trick is to avoid having all nuns, rabbis, Sikhs and other religious people with religious headwear automatically referred to secondary screening at one extreme and blindly allowing them through to avoid offending their religious sensitivities at the other extreme.

Bottom line is this: if we cannot resolve an issue, then the passenger does not travel. Even those with religious headwear who refuse to remove it.

This is certainly a contentious issue not only for Sikhs but for any group whose beliefs require the wearing of certain headwear. The challenge is to train TSOs how to exercise sound judgment whenever someone clears the walk-thru metal detector yet may be concealing a non-metallic item that could be an explosive or other non-metallic weapon. The trick is to avoid having all nuns, rabbis, Sikhs and other religious people with religious headwear automatically referred to secondary screening at one extreme and blindly allowing them through to avoid offending their religious sensitivities at the other extreme.

Bottom line is this: if we cannot resolve an issue, then the passenger does not travel. Even those with religious headwear who refuse to remove it.

About the bolded portion: Each and every traveler wearing pants might have a ceramic knife (or some other non-metallic item that could be a weapon) taped to their leg. Short of removing those pants or conducting a very thorough pat-down, the TSA will never know.

Sensible risk management dictates that the TSA ignore that extremely remote possibility. At least right now, that's the TSA's SOP on pants and non-metallic weaponry.

As you pointed out, caps, hats and other headwear (like turbans) might similarly hide such non-metallic weaponry. So what? No different that the hundreds of millions of pants-wearing passengers. You might not catch all non-metallic weapons. That's called risk management. Excessive obsession about headwear sounds like risk avoidance. You blindly allow pants. So what's wrong with blindly allowing hats?

About the bolded portion: Each and every traveler wearing pants might have a ceramic knife (or some other non-metallic item that could be a weapon) taped to their leg. Short of removing those pants or conducting a very thorough pat-down, the TSA will never know.

Sensible risk management dictates that the TSA ignore that extremely remote possibility. At least right now, that's the TSA's SOP on pants and non-metallic weaponry.

As you pointed out, caps, hats and other headwear (like turbans) might similarly hide such non-metallic weaponry. So what? No different that the hundreds of millions of pants-wearing passengers. You might not catch all non-metallic weapons. That's called risk management. Excessive obsession about headwear sounds like risk avoidance. You blindly allow pants. So what's wrong with blindly allowing hats?

Risk management is the key.

Hello Bart,

Always seen nice hear from you again. After what is reason TSA is doing more changed the rules at US Airports. I don't considerable what is situation over there at PHX. I seen all taken care from TSA make sure some of passengers need take out the DVD players, laptop and video games, too. IT would need to be screened the electronics. IT would be safer than before. Do you know about the policy has been change lately. I haven't seen you over TS/S Forums lately. I always seen new inline baggage screening system in PHX will be completed.

Otherwise, that I have noticed what happened in FLL that means all x-ray machines is went downstairs. Because it was too many change at FLL some long time ago. I don't mention which specific x-ray machines is on the ramp. DO you know which new inline baggage screening system in ORD. I have heard all those information came in few weeks ago. IT was removal all CTX-5500 machines will be not there at ticket lobbies. I know TSA will installed new inline baggage screening system in ORD with AA, UA and along other airlines. I would assumed that means you didn't noticed about TSA is changed in ORD. Can you please show me the video about CTX-9000. I would likely to see new inline baggage screening system. Thank for your cooperation with me.

Hello Bart,

Always seen nice hear from you again. After what is reason TSA is doing more changed the rules at US Airports. I don't considerable what is situation over there at PHX. I seen all taken care from TSA make sure some of passengers need take out the DVD players, laptop and video games, too. IT would need to be screened the electronics. IT would be safer than before. Do you know about the policy has been change lately. I haven't seen you over TS/S Forums lately. I always seen new inline baggage screening system in PHX will be completed.

Otherwise, that I have noticed what happened in FLL that means all x-ray machines is went downstairs. Because it was too many change at FLL some long time ago. I don't mention which specific x-ray machines is on the ramp. DO you know which new inline baggage screening system in ORD. I have heard all those information came in few weeks ago. IT was removal all CTX-5500 machines will be not there at ticket lobbies. I know TSA will installed new inline baggage screening system in ORD with AA, UA and along other airlines. I would assumed that means you didn't noticed about TSA is changed in ORD. Can you please show me the video about CTX-9000. I would likely to see new inline baggage screening system. Thank for your cooperation with me.

The goal all along was to have inline baggage systems installed. However, there were very few airports configured to allow the immediate installation of these inline systems since checked baggage screening did not exist prior to 9/11. The appeal of inline baggage systems is that there's minimal handling of passenger luggage. After the passenger drops off the bag at the ticket counter, the bag is automatically routed through a CTX 9000, screened and then either routed directly to an airline baggage handler who loads it onto the aircraft or it's diverted into a TSA screening room for further screening. The only bags TSOs will touch will be only those that require further screening. This will greatly reduced the number of injuries TSOs incur every year.

Use of the CTX 5500, CTX 2500 and the 3DX 6000 EDS machines you may see in many airport lobbies were temporary solutions that allowed TSA to meet the Congressional mandate of 100% passenger baggage screening no later than December 2002. It was understood that checked baggage screening would eventually move behind the lobby walls. It seems that many airport managers consider the TSA checked baggage screening locations an eyesore and can't wait until they are relocated. However, there will still be a need for at least one station in the public lobby for the screening of animal kennels, locked weapons cases and other similar situations.

Correct. I know which large oversize checked bags need to being screened at ticket counter. I know which specific kind of golf bags, surfboard, wheelchair, stroller, weapons, or different kind of those boxes. Boxes need to be opened while the TSA need hand-search before loaded the baggage belts. I know some of those TSA employees at FLL. He was alone while wait for more larger checked bags need to being search before put onto the belt.

I know all x-ray machines went downstairs while ago earlier 2007. I am not even sure which months was relocated the x-ray machines from ticket counter. How is good possibility need installed new CTX-9000 inline baggage screening system. I think the bags need reduction save times. I know the bags is alarm. The bags will automatically go to secondary screening. They need to be inspected the bags before the bags is on transports.

I agree with most of your comments except the bolded one. I have known many sikhs, some are even related to me, by marriage. None of the ones I know has been involved in any kind of terrorism activity.. Yet, AI 182 was brought down by a bomb in luggage reported to have been checked by a Sikh in 1985. There were no survivors. The flight took off from Montreal and was headed to LHR. Another bomb was placed in luggage on a Canadian Pacific flight the same day meant to be transfered to an Air India flight departing Tokyo, but exploded prematurely in the luggage hold area of Narita. This is reported linked to a Sikh also.

The days of Sikh terrorism are gone though. Their target was Indian Government and its assets, not American people or the US Govt.

Oh, how comforting to know that ALL Sikh's are no longer terrorists....even though you admit SOME were.., and with a history of BLOWING UP airliners.....

Yeah, we need to cut you guys a break....give ME a break!

Do you know anything about Sikh separatist movement? Here is something that would surprise you

Through the late 1960's and into the 1970's, the ISI worked in tandem with the CIA, under the Richard Nixon administration, to provide aid and support to the Khalistan movement.

Sikh terrorism would not have existed had it not been for Khalistan movement.

International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence (http://www.yousufnazar.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/isi.pdf)