|
Originally Posted by Spiff
I'll try to be "extra visible" to the news crews so I can tell them just how much this new round of harassment equates to 1 step forward, 3 steps backwards. ;)
|
Originally Posted by Spiff
The private screeners never, ever harassed me the way the The Second Al-Qaida does.
Federalizing airport screening was one of the biggest blunders this nation has ever made. :td: |
Originally Posted by n5667
What sort of harrassment are you subject to, if I may ask?
Being groped Having my ID scrutinized Having my belongings opened with no probable cause to do so |
Originally Posted by Spiff
Shoe harassment
Being groped Having my ID scrutinized Having my belongings opened with no probable cause to do so ...And there's probable cause, you're flying on a plane! :D |
Originally Posted by n5667
Being groped? I'd file charges over that one, the rest I'm not sure you have much of a case...
...And there's probable cause, you're flying on a plane! :D |
Originally Posted by Spiff
The private screeners never, ever harassed me the way the The Second Al-Qaida does.
HAHA! I love reading Spiff's posts. |
Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775
Please cite the U.S. Supreme Court opinion holding that the mere fact an American is trying to board an airplane is probable cause to search that American.
We don't search private planes, after all... Of course, where's the supreme court opinion holding that the government can't search passangers flying on commercial airliners? |
Originally Posted by n5667
Being groped? I'd file charges over that one, the rest I'm not sure you have much of a case...
...And there's probable cause, you're flying on a plane! :D None of this crap occurred prior to the creation of this disgrace of an agency. |
Well, Richard Reid didn't exist before 9/11, and considering cases such as Lockerbie, perhaps it is good to have bags searched... Planes seem to be a popular, symbolic target for terrorists - and screening for incidents that have already occured doesn't seem so terribly illogical...
|
Originally Posted by n5667
Well, Richard Reid didn't exist before 9/11, and considering cases such as Lockerbie, perhaps it is good to have bags searched... Planes seem to be a popular, symbolic target for terrorists - and screening for incidents that have already occured doesn't seem so terribly illogical...
Face it, TSA is an overreaction of epic proportions, on several different levels. |
Originally Posted by n5667
Well, Richard Reid didn't exist before 9/11, and considering cases such as Lockerbie, perhaps it is good to have bags searched... Planes seem to be a popular, symbolic target for terrorists - and screening for incidents that have already occured doesn't seem so terribly illogical...
That's not a valid excuse for this stupid, disgusting shoe harassment that occurs at the airport. Comrades Mineta, Loy, Stone and now Hawley are just filthy little collaborators with the terrorist Richard Reid. |
Originally Posted by n5667
I don't think there is - but really, this is an airpline owned by a private company operated for commercial benefit - how does the law apply in this case?
We don't search private planes, after all...
Originally Posted by n5667
Of course, where's the supreme court opinion holding that the government can't search passangers flying on commercial airliners?
|
Originally Posted by doober
is that according to the NY Times article:
"These kinds of sharp instruments are now found in about one in four carry-on bags." |
Originally Posted by ND Sol
From my unscientific observations, I find it hard to believe that one in four bags have sharp instruments that are found by the screeners. Have others noticed this?
Usually about six or seven people pass me before I get all my stuff back together (longer if I'm at a stronger-setting WTMD for my belt), and I seldomly see people have stuff confiscated. Certainly not at that rate. |
Originally Posted by LessO2
I have seen some scissors and a corkscrew confiscated before.
Usually about six or seven people pass me before I get all my stuff back together (longer if I'm at a stronger-setting WTMD for my belt), and I seldomly see people have stuff confiscated. Certainly not at that rate. |
Originally Posted by n5667
Well, Richard Reid didn't exist before 9/11, and considering cases such as Lockerbie, perhaps it is good to have bags searched... Planes seem to be a popular, symbolic target for terrorists - and screening for incidents that have already occured doesn't seem so terribly illogical...
|
This was in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, page A9. Banned items intercepted by airport screeners, January 1 - Nov. 29, 2005: Lighters (banned as of April14) 8,124,525, Sharp Objects 3,041,218, Knives and blades 1,650,894 (less than 3 inches 1,599,103) (3 inches or longer 51,791), Tools, 819,450, Flammables and irritants 362,613 (not sure if they included irritating passengers), Ammunition and gunpowder 21,939, Box cutters 19,499, Clubs, bats and bludgeons 19,183. Just wondering where all this stuff came from. People that don't believe their dangerous? People that don't know the rules? (come on, its been 4 years and unless you haven't read a paper or watched television, this is a lame excuse) or people that think we should "know" their not terrorists? Or were at least a couple of them "bad guys" that wanted to harm us?
|
Originally Posted by bambi47
This was in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, page A9. Banned items intercepted by airport screeners, January 1 - Nov. 29, 2005: Lighters (banned as of April14) 8,124,525, Sharp Objects 3,041,218, Knives and blades 1,650,894 (less than 3 inches 1,599,103) (3 inches or longer 51,791), Tools, 819,450, Flammables and irritants 362,613 (not sure if they included irritating passengers), Ammunition and gunpowder 21,939, Box cutters 19,499, Clubs, bats and bludgeons 19,183. Just wondering where all this stuff came from. People that don't believe their dangerous? People that don't know the rules? (come on, its been 4 years and unless you haven't read a paper or watched television, this is a lame excuse) or people that think we should "know" their not terrorists? Or were at least a couple of them "bad guys" that wanted to harm us?
Eight out of every 10 people on a plane, on average, are NOT frequent fliers. And those folks are the TSA's target audience in terms of contraband and public perception. It's THOSE uneducated people who fly once or twice a year are who the TSA thrives on, the ones they cater to when they point out how "valuable" the TSA is. On the other hand, about eight out of every 10 frequent fliers feel the TSA is unnecessary. |
Originally Posted by LessO2
It makes perfect sense to me.
Eight out of every 10 people on a plane, on average, are NOT frequent fliers. And those folks are the TSA's target audience in terms of contraband and public perception. It's THOSE uneducated people who fly once or twice a year are who the TSA thrives on, the ones they cater to when they point out how "valuable" the TSA is. On the other hand, about eight out of every 10 frequent fliers feel the TSA is unnecessary. |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
I won't comment on the security aspects of all of this, but I thought long & hard about the date the TSA chose to implement this "improvement."
1. We all know that this will be right in the middle of all the Christmas flying period. When the inevitable chaos occurs, all of it will be masked by the normal chaos of flying during this time of year. TSA wins. 2. This circus will impress the infrequent flyers immensely. The media will follow right along, because there will be an ample supply of the "anything for security crowd" to shove a microphone and camera in front of. TSA wins. 3. The infrequent flyer mass influx will produce ample opportunities to find prohibited items, justify this change, and make examples of several of our fellow citizens. There will also be ample opportunity to detain and arrest those terrorists who get caught with dangerous items such as a joint or two or a large amount of cash. TSA wins. 4. The TSA spokesholes have reinforced the cause/effect spin to "compliance versus checkpoint waiting times." Civil liberties and security bang for the buck aren't even in the equation anymore. TSA wins. You have to hand it to them -- they know how to work a crowd. |
Originally Posted by bambi47
Yeah, I know those frequent flyers. Their the ones that "didn't know that was in my bag". I see them every day.
I can honestly say I had one of those moments. I had a 2.5 inch-WIDE Swiss Army Knife that I forgot I put into my briefcase when I moved in 2003. The difference is that TSA at IAH missed it once, and the TSA in DEN missed it twice. I checked my Tumi rollaboard with the knife on the way back home from Boston. But I personally have never had an item confiscated. And it doesn't change the Frequent Fliers' perception of the TSA's wholly PR purpose. |
Originally Posted by bambi47
Yeah, I know those frequent flyers. Their the ones that "didn't know that was in my bag". I see them every day.
Went through the security at YVR. They looked in my carry-ons, made me turn on the digital SLR camera, etc. etc. Once on the plane, I reached into my camera bag and came up with the knife. Seems neither I nor the screener could find it! Not everyone works at the airport. Many of us lead complicated and chaotic lives. To forget a pair of cuticle scissors - as my wife did last month on our way ORD - LHR - is not so uncommon even for people who travel a lot. BFD, sez I. |
Originally Posted by Spiff
The "Richard Reid" excuse is both lame and pathetic. Richard Reid could have crammed his sloppy bomb in his pants or in his butt.
That's not a valid excuse for this stupid, disgusting shoe harassment that occurs at the airport. Comrades Mineta, Loy, Stone and now Hawley are just filthy little collaborators with the terrorist Richard Reid. Or should be check your butt crack too?.. |
Again, I was being sarcastic. I guess I'm not as funny as I thought. No more jokes. And I guess, no pat down either Teacher49?
|
Originally Posted by bambi47
This was in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, page A9. Banned items intercepted by airport screeners, January 1 - Nov. 29, 2005: Lighters (banned as of April14) 8,124,525, ... Just wondering where all this stuff came from. People that don't believe their dangerous?
I am one of those "people that don't believe they're dangerous." Can you please explain to me how they became more dangerous on April 14 than they were on April 13. |
Originally Posted by bambi47
This was in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, page A9. Banned items intercepted by airport screeners, January 1 - Nov. 29, 2005: Lighters (banned as of April14) 8,124,525, Sharp Objects 3,041,218, Knives and blades 1,650,894 (less than 3 inches 1,599,103) (3 inches or longer 51,791), Tools, 819,450, Flammables and irritants 362,613 (not sure if they included irritating passengers), Ammunition and gunpowder 21,939, Box cutters 19,499, Clubs, bats and bludgeons 19,183. Just wondering where all this stuff came from. People that don't believe their dangerous? People that don't know the rules? (come on, its been 4 years and unless you haven't read a paper or watched television, this is a lame excuse) or people that think we should "know" their not terrorists? Or were at least a couple of them "bad guys" that wanted to harm us?
|
Originally Posted by n5667
So we should just have no security at all?
Or should be check your butt crack too?.. How did you reach that conclusion? :confused: "Those clothes are ugly." "Well, you must hate all clothes!!!" "That car is not road worthy." "Why do you hate cars, man???" "Bribery is a bad thing." "Oh! I suppose we should just ban money then!" You really ought to think these things through before you make such wild conclusions. |
Originally Posted by bambi47
Again, I was being sarcastic. I guess I'm not as funny as I thought. No more jokes. And I guess, no pat down either Teacher49?
|
Originally Posted by bambi47
This was in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, page A9. Banned items intercepted by airport screeners, January 1 - Nov. 29, 2005: Lighters (banned as of April14) 8,124,525, Sharp Objects 3,041,218, Knives and blades 1,650,894 (less than 3 inches 1,599,103) (3 inches or longer 51,791), Tools, 819,450, Flammables and irritants 362,613 (not sure if they included irritating passengers), Ammunition and gunpowder 21,939, Box cutters 19,499, Clubs, bats and bludgeons 19,183. Just wondering where all this stuff came from. People that don't believe their dangerous? People that don't know the rules? (come on, its been 4 years and unless you haven't read a paper or watched television, this is a lame excuse) or people that think we should "know" their not terrorists? Or were at least a couple of them "bad guys" that wanted to harm us?
...You must be proud... |
Opposition
So now there is formal opposition to the changes from flight attendants, 9/11 victim families and some other interest group. Of course, the fact that the head of security for the pilots association said pointy objects were irrelevant, even before 9/11, doesn't seem to matter to them.
|
Write your Congresscritters!
New York Times:
Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., said Thursday they intend to introduce a bill to preserve the current prohibition on sharp scissors, tools and knives in airliner cabins. ''The Bush administration proposal is just asking the next Mohamed Atta to move from box cutters to scissors as the weapon that's used in the passenger cabin of planes,'' Markey said. But Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Commerce Committee's aviation panel, objected to the policy shift. In a letter to Hawley, she wrote that the change ''could undermine the progress we have made in securing our skies since the 9/11 attacks. Security demands vigilance; we cannot become complacent.'' |
Who can follow TSA's justification for what they decide to do???
So, now you can bring scissors and small knives on the plane, but a lighter is still prohibited. Makes no sense. TSA must be in the mood for some re-vamping though. A colleague of mine flew into Watertown NY (tiny little airport; I guess they actually close for the night)this past week. All the passengers got off, and then the ones going to the other two stops, Messena and Ogdenburg, just got back on the plane when they were ready to go. No security screening at all. My colleague found it slightly bizarre since it is a commercial flight (US Air Exp). He thought maybe the airport had gone private or something along those lines. |
Deleted
|
Deleted
|
Deleted
|
The "new" and "unpredictable" security is going to be a nightmare for those of us who have been fighting the shoe carnival. Now retaliatory screenings will simply be "random" and the TSA will have "procedure" backing them up.
Sigh. |
No Consistency - Good for security, bad in real life
Yes, I saw a press release which specifically stated that "Some days everyone will need to remove their shoes and other days they won't." In theory, random procedures *do* make sense for security -- **if** utilized correctly. In practice, I expect this means justification for any irrational procedure which happens to be utilized at any particular location. A "win/win" for management which will no longer be required to respond to inconsistency in the system.
|
Updated News Article
can be found here
Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., said Thursday they intend to introduce a bill to preserve the current list of items barred from the cabin. "The Bush administration proposal is just asking the next Mohamed Atta to move from box cutters to scissors as the weapon that's used in the passenger cabin of planes," Markey said, referring to the leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers. Stupid idiots. Even their comments are ridiculous...gratuitous grandstanding for votes at everyones' expense. Justin Green is an attorney for the families of three flight attendants who died aboard American Airlines Flight 11, which hijackers crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. ... "The families are outraged that the TSA is planning on letting weapons back on board," Green said. Weapons?? Should I apply for a carry permit the next time I need to trim my toenails or screw something into a piece of wood? Another idiot. Now finally, a voice of reason... Bob Hesselbein, the union's national security committee chairman, said pilots think it's more important to focus on passengers' intent rather than what they're carrying. "A Swiss army knife in the briefcase of a frequent flyer we know very well is a tool," Hesselbein said. "A ballpoint pen in the hands of a terrorist is a weapon." And a voice of reason from a politician, no less... Rep. John Mica (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., chairman of the House Transportation Committee's aviation panel, agrees with Hawley that screeners should be looking for explosives rather than small, sharp objects that could be used as weapons. "You have a huge army of pilots that are now armed, you have significant numbers of federal air marshals, you have secure cockpit doors, you have an alert public," Mica said. "Terrorists aren't dumb, they can see what the weakness in the system is." |
Originally Posted by Spiff
Because I am against stupid "security", I am now against all security?? :confused:
How did you reach that conclusion? :confused: "Those clothes are ugly." "Well, you must hate all clothes!!!" "That car is not road worthy." "Why do you hate cars, man???" "Bribery is a bad thing." "Oh! I suppose we should just ban money then!" You really ought to think these things through before you make such wild conclusions. So let me reiterate more clearly: my question is that if we don't screen for a threat in one obvious place that has already been utilized by an attempted terrorist, what's the point of screening at all?.. |
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:56 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.