How is the security provided by TSA when compared to El Al?
Dec 6, 2005 | 3:44 pm
#106
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: أمريكا
Posts: 26,931
Originally Posted by Mikey likes it
That we do not profile flyers for terroristic characteristics, and focus screening activities on those who fit the profile, is foolish and wasteful, IMO.
I can't remember the last time I took a trip (and that's at least weekly) without seeing someone ridiculous getting the full treatment. Think the once-every-10-years elderly couple. Or the woman with the baby.
Dec 6, 2005 | 4:00 pm
#107
Join Date: Nov 2005
Programs: AOPA, AAdvantage, jetBlue TrueBlue
Posts: 31
El Al security does work, but I've seen them at T4 in JFK in the baggage pit do some things that you guys would be suprised about...this is the reason why in T4 in JFK airport there's always a TSA employee in the baggage pit when El Al is working. A few of us witnessed their guys not screening bags when the flight is ready to get out; it's just sent straight down the belt to the baggage room to get on the plane. But the main reason why a TSA employee is in the pit with El Al at T4 in JFK is because they had a potential IED in a bag, they all took off, and called us from outside the airport and told us about it
Dec 6, 2005 | 4:42 pm
#108
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,859
You live in San Fran AND you have your head screwed on straight? Sir, I congratulate you . Point very well made!
When the right to free practice of religion involves being harassed, abused, detained, imprisoned, tortured or killed for being a member of a religion, then Rights are being trampled on.
Just because someone can manufacture a justification, doesn't make something right. .... and "the security force's " judgement appears to be often flawed given the number of "fish" stopped and then released.
Just because someone can manufacture a justification, doesn't make something right. .... and "the security force's " judgement appears to be often flawed given the number of "fish" stopped and then released.
Dec 6, 2005 | 5:09 pm
#109
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by entropy
GU, You are making very broad declarations without any basis in reality. Nobody is being detained, theatened, abused, imprisioned or tortured by Israeli aviation security.
[w]hen the right to free practice of religion involves being harassed, abused, detained, imprisoned, tortured or killed for being a member of a religion
In regards to your Sentence 2 above, I did not assert what you wrote. "Harassed, abused, detained" by people working with/for "Israeli aviation security" (writ large), yes on specific occassions.
If you care to have a protracted debate about the definition of harassment, abuse, or detention, that's another matter.
Last edited by GUWonder; Dec 6, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Dec 6, 2005 | 6:01 pm
#110
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,859
I'm sure somewhere in the world, and particularly in the US, the TSA severely breaks the law with regard to stealing information.
YOu'd do better to clarify exactly whom you are saying is violating rights, simply saying "rights are violated" IS a blanket statement.
YOu'd do better to clarify exactly whom you are saying is violating rights, simply saying "rights are violated" IS a blanket statement.
Dec 6, 2005 | 6:16 pm
#111
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by entropy
YOu'd do better to clarify exactly whom you are saying is violating rights, simply saying "rights are violated" IS a blanket statement.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
"Harassed, abused, detained" by people working with/for "Israeli aviation security" (writ large), yes on specific occassions.
Sometimes I don't feel like writing a treatise. And sometimes I don't feel like elaborating on my prior statements -- statements which I stand by -- especially when it's likely to be used to feed someone looking for a protracted "debate" in which I don't have current interest. This is one of those times. Other times may not be.
Last edited by GUWonder; Dec 6, 2005 at 9:47 pm Reason: Removing one character
Dec 6, 2005 | 10:46 pm
#112
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,859
When the right to free practice of religion involves being harassed, abused, detained, imprisoned, tortured or killed for being a member of a religion, then Rights are being trampled on.
Just because someone can manufacture a justification, doesn't make something right. .... and "the security force's " judgement appears to be often flawed given the number of "fish" stopped and then released.
Just because someone can manufacture a justification, doesn't make something right. .... and "the security force's " judgement appears to be often flawed given the number of "fish" stopped and then released.
I'm not going to bother replying anymore to this kind of nonsense.
Dec 6, 2005 | 11:10 pm
#113
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by entropy
Originally Posted by GUWonder
When the right to free practice of religion involves being harassed, abused, detained, imprisoned, tortured or killed for being a member of a religion, then Rights are being trampled on.
Just because someone can manufacture a justification, doesn't make something right. .... and "the security force's " judgement appears to be often flawed given the number of "fish" stopped and then released.
Just because someone can manufacture a justification, doesn't make something right. .... and "the security force's " judgement appears to be often flawed given the number of "fish" stopped and then released.
I'm not going to bother replying anymore to this kind of nonsense.
When the right to free practice of religion involves being harassed, abused, detained, imprisoned, tortured or killed for being a member of a religion, then Rights are being trampled on.
In any event (and in honest context w/r/t "blanket statement" claims) the following -- that Rights are violated by people working with/for "Israeli aviation security writ large on specific occassions -- is NOT a blanket statement:
Originally Posted by GUWonder
"Harassed, abused, detained" by people working with/for "Israeli aviation security" (writ large), yes on specific occassions.
Last edited by GUWonder; Dec 6, 2005 at 11:13 pm
Dec 6, 2005 | 11:53 pm
#115
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by bambi47
Its not WRONG, its his opinion. Neither are right or wrong, just different.
"That is wrong, for the world is actually round."
"All opinions are equal."
now back on topic .....
How much does the TSA spend on foreign contractors for security advice?
Dec 6, 2005 | 11:58 pm
#116
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: soaking up the sun
Programs: unemployment
Posts: 687
Originally Posted by GUWonder
"The world is flat".
"That is wrong, for the world is actually round."
"All opinions are equal."
now back on topic .....
How much does the TSA spend on foreign contractors for security advice?
"That is wrong, for the world is actually round."
"All opinions are equal."
now back on topic .....
How much does the TSA spend on foreign contractors for security advice?
Dec 7, 2005 | 12:00 am
#117
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by bambi47
I honestly don't know. All I know is that the WTMD (the newer ones) were manufactured and installed by an Italian company. I was there when they were installed and the contractors couldn't speak English. They had an interpreter with them.