View Full Version : The TSA touched my vagina
Almost Jaded
03-20-2011, 02:41 PM
Most of the time it's just that. Even when I got pulled aside and given the full search a couple of times, it wasn't a big deal. Annoying, but whatever.
There have been instances reported around the country, 8 or 10 of hem have caught media attention and/or headed to court, where the body searches went WAY too far. My friend subpoenaed the video tapes of the hour he was searched and I've seen them. His body search was noticeably different then the ones before him. And the dude spent an inordinate amount of time groping his junk. It was seriously weird to watch. Throw in the comment, and you've crossed a line in a big way.
Jay12
03-20-2011, 06:21 PM
Once, a TSA butchy guard started grabbing my ass because she though my buttcheeks were fake!!!!
mediocrity
03-20-2011, 11:00 PM
Everyone should google John Tyner "Don't Touch My Junk". I love that dude.
All I can say is if I got touched like that, I'd press charges... which you CAN do!
Optimist
03-21-2011, 09:39 PM
On the contrary. I would have more sympathy perhaps if the TSA was using this for their own sexual pleasure, or to purposely degrade whoever is being touched, but that's not the case at all, at least imo.
Your opinion is obviously NOT based on the info shared in this thread. You have some pre-conceived notion of what you'd like to believe is going on. If you re-read the tread when you aren't overtired you'll see all the info that goes against your fantasy that none of these people are touching people for their own sexual pleasure. None of these people are required to have a law enforcement background or even screened for a criminal record. Just like pedophiles love to become teachers, priests, etc. to get close to kids, any sexual deviant would see this as an ideal job to be paid to grope other people's sexual parts with impunity.
BTW you aren't the only person female or male to ever be raped/molested, so your opinion doesn't have some automatic superiority to anyone else's on here. She experienced the violation and you can only guess at how bad it was.
jester214
03-21-2011, 10:22 PM
None of these people are even screened for a criminal record.
This is totally false.
Shit my cousin had a criminal background check run on him so he could work at a grocery store. You think TSA employees don't?
AngelCummings
03-22-2011, 08:14 AM
Your opinion is obviously NOT based on the info shared in this thread. You have some pre-conceived notion of what you'd like to believe is going on. If you re-read the tread when you aren't overtired you'll see all the info that goes against your fantasy that none of these people are touching people for their own sexual pleasure. None of these people are required to have a law enforcement background or even screened for a criminal record. Just like pedophiles love to become teachers, priests, etc. to get close to kids, any sexual deviant would see this as an ideal job to be paid to grope other people's sexual parts with impunity.
BTW you aren't the only person female or male to ever be raped/molested, so your opinion doesn't have some automatic superiority to anyone else's on here. She experienced the violation and you can only guess at how bad it was.
ummm excuse me, did you even actually read my post? YOU are the one coming up with preconceived notions and attacking me for absolutely no reason. Why the hell would I "like" for anything to be going on? My fantasy?? I'm not saying that there isn't anyone who may be doing that sort of thing with some sick fetish in mind, but people need to get over themselves and stop thinking that the whole world is out to perv on them or make their life more difficult. I NEVER claimed to be the only person that had been raped or molested, so you came up with that one on your own. I also never said that my opinion was superior over anyone else - I simply feel that I may have a more rounded outlook on this since I've been touched by the tsa, as the op and a lot of other people here have, as well as actually being forced sexually against my will, which was truly a painful, frightening, and traumatic experience that has taken years of counseling for me to even begin to get over. I'm sorry, but your post is full of shit and can't even be taken seriously. Get your facts straight before you try to start correcting other people.
Almost Jaded
03-22-2011, 03:11 PM
I went through much of the training that the TSA people go through, and many of the people headed to the security positions were in my class. There is absolutely a background check, and a comprehensive one at that.
The training and the people going through it are a TOTAL JOKE. I cannot begin to explain how pathetic the whole thing was. I was in shock most of that week and forever since have tried to put out of my mind what I know about the people "protecting" us every time I fly...
lemiwinks31
03-22-2011, 03:59 PM
I fly about 10 times a year.....with the new procedures over the last year or so.......i have been going through the scanner and have gotten patted down twice......yes..checked my crotch, whole thing took probably about 5 seconds........couldnt have been easier, i cant believe anyone would think something like that would be a sexual violation.....(actually i can believe it)
You want to know what is a little unpleasant? My doc checking my prostrate, but i dont think i am going to report him for sexual assault....
And on a side note......dont have your wife in the room while you are getting examined......i thought, no big deal, she was with me anyway.....then as soon as the doc shoves his finger up my ass...i hear my wife start laughing her ass off.....she covered her mouth trying to stop, but she couldnt....yeah yeah...very funny bitch!
Almost Jaded
03-22-2011, 04:15 PM
yes..checked my crotch, whole thing took probably about 5 seconds........couldnt have been easier, i cant believe anyone would think something like that would be a sexual violation.....(actually i can believe it)
But sometimes that part lasts 10 seconds. Or in my friends case, 20 seconds. And it crosses a line in a big way.
charlottenh
03-23-2011, 07:03 AM
Simply because getting patted down "isn't that bad" doesn't make it non-intrusive and outright uncalled for. If this sort of thing happened even 20 years ago people would be outraged, yet we've become so desensitized to the government overstepping its boundaries, and "keeping everyone safe" that situations like this are met with apathy. It saddens me to think of how complacent we as a society have all become.
TSA searches and all of these measures designed to "protect us" don't function as intended. They are ineffective in stopping a terrorist attack, and only serve to expand the government's power and size.
“Never waste the opportunity offered by a good crisis.” Niccolo Machiavelli
Almost Jaded
03-23-2011, 01:59 PM
A good friend of mine travels 3-4 times a month for work, and carries all manner of tools with him in special containers because of the nature of his work. Like, big power tools and crazy metal cutting devices and such. One day he came home and was unpacking, we're all hanging out waiting TV & crap, and all the sudden he just starts laughing. Like, really loud and hard can't breathe we start to think something's wrong with him because he can't even talk tears streaming down his face laughing. He's pointing to this huge sheet rock knife on the ground, a good 10" or more blade. He finally starts calming down enough to explain that he'd accidentally left it in his carry-on, that's why he was laughing so hard. Flight out of Atlanta, layover in TX, flight to SLC - nobody caught it. We all think that's pretty funny but but not so funny as to warrant his reaction. He starts to explain why he was laughing so hard and then just loses it all over again. Finally, after we're getting frustrated and this isn't funny any more and his uncontrollable laughter just wont stop, he picks up the knife, holds it up so we can all see it, and - still laughing - manages to gasp out:
They.... Took.... My.... LIGHTER......
And rolls on the floor all over again - this time with half the room laughing just as hard! :lol:
I can give may other examples of their fuckups, abuses of power or position, etc. The fact is, our schools are underfunded, roads and bridges in disrepair, middle class is stagnating, lower class is getting worse, and they're spending BILLIONS on a bunch of retrained WalMart and McDonalds employees (in many cases literally - I went through the class folks, I met 27 of these people up close and personal) for something that doesn't matter, is more of a nuisance than anything, and could be solved MUCH more easily. Giving up rights and violating privacy - for what? Keeping us safe? It's a chicken and egg - bad guys try something new, we react, they do something else, we react, it never ends, and there's always a way around something. IT'S NOT WORTH IT.
Put two armed guards on each flight, one in uniform and one among the passengers. Done. Put a cue ball in a tube sock under every seat. Done. Make people ship their luggage ahead and they get one, small, searchable carry-on (they would fuck this up horribly, but it's an option) so that passengers and luggage fly separately - done. There are a million ways to handle this better than it's being handled now.
jester214
03-23-2011, 09:23 PM
Put two armed guards on each flight, one in uniform and one among the passengers. Done. Put a cue ball in a tube sock under every seat. Done. Make people ship their luggage ahead and they get one, small, searchable carry-on (they would fuck this up horribly, but it's an option) so that passengers and luggage fly separately - done. There are a million ways to handle this better than it's being handled now.
But it's a chicken and egg thing man! ::) We put guards on the flights, they infiltrate the guards! We put cue balls in a tube sock under every seat they plant explosives in the cue balls! We make people ship luggage ahead... well in that scenario we just all end up in Europe for two weeks with no luggage.
They adapt as they learn. Under your logic why not just toss out metal dectectors? They obviously don't catch everything, right?
That act itself is designed to be a deterrant. If we keep changing procedure they gotta keep taking time to think up new plans. Sure it's not perfect, but it is a helluva lot better than the alternative.
Things keep going, people like your "friend" sue, the process changes and hopefully get's better.
You offer me a soloution and I'll explain to you why it's ridiculous. This is the best we got right now, for a variety of reasons.
mediocrity
03-23-2011, 11:36 PM
All of this BS is a result of mass hysteria and fear. I'm going to keep my flying down to a minimum; I can't handle this level of foolishness.
Almost Jaded
03-24-2011, 01:54 AM
This is the best we got right now, for a variety of reasons.
No, it's not - not even close.
Might as well throw out the metal detectors; ceramic weapons are easy to come by now, and firearms can be made of just about ANYTHING with a little ingenuity.
The new policy according to me - everyone signs a waiver acknowledging hat a plane kills more people when it hits something than when just the people on board die, and any plane hijacked is shot down. Arm ALL the passengers. See how far a terrorist gets when everyone on board is armed and knows that if the bad guys take over the plane, it gets two sidewinders to the ass and they all die anyway.
jester214
03-24-2011, 07:56 AM
No, it's not - not even close.
Might as well throw out the metal detectors; ceramic weapons are easy to come by now, and firearms can be made of just about ANYTHING with a little ingenuity.
The new policy according to me - everyone signs a waiver acknowledging hat a plane kills more people when it hits something than when just the people on board die, and any plane hijacked is shot down. Arm ALL the passengers. See how far a terrorist gets when everyone on board is armed and knows that if the bad guys take over the plane, it gets two sidewinders to the ass and they all die anyway.
You almost sound serious.
We'd be blowing up a plane every time two businessmen got in a fight about baseball or some drunk idiot got cut off by the attendants.
Besides, its now apparently not really about taking over the plane, it's about blowing it up.
DottieMay
03-24-2011, 12:28 PM
It is horrible that we are allowing people to publicly humiliate each other. On the other hand though, I always opt for the pat down, because I'm a freak lol. I kind of get turned on by it and I can tell they can tell, which makes it even more exciting for me. But I do feel bad for all the other people that are forced into it.
Almost Jaded
03-24-2011, 12:55 PM
You almost sound serious.
I am *almost* serious. I am DEAD serious about the current setup being a COMPLETE waste of effort and resources.
We'd be blowing up a plane every time two businessmen got in a fight about baseball or some drunk idiot got cut off by the attendants.
No, I said if the plane was taken over by terrorists/hijacked. Big difference.
Besides, its now apparently not really about taking over the plane, it's about blowing it up.
How very 1980's of you. Historically, they usually fly it somewhere else and demand something. Sometimes the blow it up, sometimes they fly it into something. In any event, the current airport security measures do little to prevent any of these scenarios. Sky Marshals, reinforced pilot compartments, and ticked off passengers who remember 9/11 and flight 93 are the real deterrents right now, the ret is expensive and superfluous.
jester214
03-24-2011, 01:49 PM
No, I said if the plane was taken over by terrorists/hijacked. Big difference.
How very 1980's of you. Historically, they usually fly it somewhere else and demand something. Sometimes the blow it up, sometimes they fly it into something. In any event, the current airport security measures do little to prevent any of these scenarios. Sky Marshals, reinforced pilot compartments, and ticked off passengers who remember 9/11 and flight 93 are the real deterrents right now, the ret is expensive and superfluous.
My point was if you put weapons on the plane in everyones hand (a ridiculous idea) then you would have deadly and violent fights that would probably force planes to be shot down way mroe often.
You're scenarios addressed a "take over". The most current fear is the detonation of bombs on the plane, an action that could happen without anyone else on the plane even knowing whats going on.
No one will takeover a plane in this country in the next decade, you would have to kill half the plane to get to the cockpit.... Blowing one up though, much different story. Explosives are what they are trying to stop. Skymarshals (which are in many ways a joke), armed passengers, and bank vault cockpit doors won't stop explosives.
KS_Stevia
03-24-2011, 02:45 PM
Cue ball in a sock....I'd probably lose my shit and use it on the girl who won't get off her cell phone or the guy who keeps farting next to me, lol....
Almost Jaded
03-24-2011, 02:54 PM
Neither will the current airport security measures if you're really determined or have half a clue what you're doing. Manual checks are not a deterrent to a well versed and technically proficient individual. The bomb sniffing devices are at very few airports.
I won't go into too much detail lest someone think I would do such a thing or another type of someone get ideas, but with my background - which isn't real high level with this stuff - it wouldn't be hard, and people with more education or experience with chemicals or electronics could do it EASILY. Pick an airport that doesn't have the sniffing equipment, hide it well in another piece of equipment in your checked luggage, remote detonator, done. Thousands of passengers being delayed for hours and deprived of privacy, dignity, personal effects, and time does nothing to prevent this.
Societies with the highest instances of carrying weapons historically have lower crime rates. The UK's unilateral gun ban did nothing to reduce violent crime. If the drunk or disorderly person pulls their weapon, 200 other people pull theirs - and everyone knows it. KS-Stevia says she'd use her sock on the person next to her - but they have one too, and so do the people around both of them.
Look at it like this - which bank are you going to rob during business hours - the one with a couple of armed guards, a vault from hell, triple layered alarm systems, and lots of cameras, Heat or The Town style? Or the one where the money is kept easily accessible but behind the counters, the alarm and surveillance is rudimentary, there are only 2 armed guards - and every person in line or on premises has a pistol or a shotgun or a knife or more than one of the above, and they all know how to use them?
jester214
03-24-2011, 05:18 PM
1. If it's so easy to do then why isn't it happening?
2. The second bank. I'd just yell something really inappropriate and then sneak out the back while the customers got into a fight and killed each other. :)
Don't get me wrong man, I'm not anti-gun. I own more than one, and used to carry regularly until I let my CC lapse. But certain places we don't need people carrying weapons, planes are one of them.
charlottenh
03-24-2011, 05:30 PM
1. If it's so easy to do then why isn't it happening?
2. The second bank. I'd just yell something really inappropriate and then sneak out the back while the customers got into a fight and killed each other. :)
Don't get me wrong man, I'm not anti-gun. I own more than one, and used to carry regularly until I let my CC lapse. But certain places we don't need people carrying weapons, planes are one of them.
1. Because the threat of people that are actually "out to get us" is grossly exaggerated? Since 9/11 we've lived in a culture of fear that is constantly perpetuated by media outlets (who were not profitable until they became sensationalized garbage), government (which naturally wants to expand its influence), and special interest groups (that want an enemy to justify their cause). As a matter of fact, news used to be accepted as a loss in revenue but necessary programing. Sensationalism sells, and so it is in their best interest of a news network monetarily to exaggerate it's stories and polarize its viewing audience.
jester214
03-24-2011, 05:42 PM
1. Because the threat of people that are actually "out to get us" is grossly exaggerated? Since 9/11 we've lived in a culture of fear that is constantly perpetuated by media outlets (who were not profitable until they became sensationalized garbage), government (which naturally wants to expand its influence), and special interest groups (that want an enemy to justify their cause). As a matter of fact, news used to be accepted as a loss in revenue but necessary programing. Sensationalism sells, and so it is in their best interest of a news network monetarily to exaggerate it's stories and polarize its viewing audience.
Sami Samir Hassoun, Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the bombs being sent out of Yemen, Bin Laden in most likely still alive and has plenty of support...
Sure it's exaggerated, most everything is exaggerated. But there are obviously people out there still trying to do this country harm (and other countries) through terrorist means. Why haven't they succeeded if it would be "so easy".
charlottenh
03-24-2011, 06:09 PM
Sami Samir Hassoun, Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the bombs being sent out of Yemen, Bin Laden in most likely still alive and has plenty of support...
Sure it's exaggerated, most everything is exaggerated. But there are obviously people out there still trying to do this country harm (and other countries) through terrorist means. Why haven't they succeeded if it would be "so easy".
The first man was tipped off by the FBI, which as you know existed PRIOR to 9/11 and predates the TSA by decades. He has nothing to do with the TSA at all. The second was reported by British Authorities and the father of the man to an American Embassy. Bin Laden hasn't appeared on video in a very long time and that statement is mere speculation. So where exactly does the TSA or other organizations formed post 9/11 come into play here? We are using resources we've had for a very long time to deal with these people. A handful of people that want to do harm does not justify the massive overreaction that has resulted in the past 10 years.
The defense of the government by the average person is hilarious to me, as is the shock expressed when they do something that crosses the line. That would be akin to having an abusive boyfriend who has cheated and hit you or others numerous times, only THIS time you are surprised that it happened. The outrage! It's par for the course.
Almost Jaded
03-24-2011, 06:28 PM
I'm MOSTLY with chrlottenh on this one. Problem is, people who go into this are painted as conspiracy theorists and/or nutjobs and disregarded. Which sucks when the truth is just that twisted.
I do NOT - although sometimes I wonder if I should - buy into the "the U.S. government was behind 9/11" stuff. I DO believe that it was the work of fringe extremist group(s). I ALSO believe that said group(s) were supported by certain special interests, both inside and out of various governments, with a long term agenda. And I ABSOLUTELY believe that the mindset of the current "average Joe" - especially in the U.S. - is just what they wanted. And I have access to information that most people do not, and not in a "I know a guy" BS kind of way. Going into detail opens easy access to a lot about me personally, so sorry, not going to happen right now.
charlottenh
03-24-2011, 07:00 PM
I'm MOSTLY with chrlottenh on this one. Problem is, people who go into this are painted as conspiracy theorists and/or nutjobs and disregarded. Which sucks when the truth is just that twisted.
I do NOT - although sometimes I wonder if I should - buy into the "the U.S. government was behind 9/11" stuff. I DO believe that it was the work of fringe extremist group(s). I ALSO believe that said group(s) were supported by certain special interests, both inside and out of various governments, with a long term agenda. And I ABSOLUTELY believe that the mindset of the current "average Joe" - especially in the U.S. - is just what they wanted. And I have access to information that most people do not, and not in a "I know a guy" BS kind of way. Going into detail opens easy access to a lot about me personally, so sorry, not going to happen right now.
I don't think I've said anything that would label me as a conspiracy theorist. History shows that government can be and over time becomes increasingly abusive. Devaluing currency and purchasing power through the overprinting of a fiat currency thereby causing inflation, creating entitlement programs that burden the country with massive debt, ruining people's lives with mandatory and excessive drug sentences, eliminating competition through the regulation of industries that increase the cost of entry by a smaller competitor virtually impossible, trade agreements such as NAFTA, subsidies that warp industry pricing, forcing people to buy health insurance or pay a fine through force (I read the 1300 page bill, and it's not a solution to this countries healthcare issues) etc are all examples of governmental abuse.
Almost Jaded
03-24-2011, 08:05 PM
"like" for people who pay attention and give a fuck.
The death of the USA as it was and the world as it could have been will be at the hands of one thing and one thing only:
Apathy.
jester214
03-24-2011, 08:28 PM
The first man was tipped off by the FBI, which as you know existed PRIOR to 9/11 and predates the TSA by decades. He has nothing to do with the TSA at all. The second was reported by British Authorities and the father of the man to an American Embassy. Bin Laden hasn't appeared on video in a very long time and that statement is mere speculation. So where exactly does the TSA or other organizations formed post 9/11 come into play here? We are using resources we've had for a very long time to deal with these people. A handful of people that want to do harm does not justify the massive overreaction that has resulted in the past 10 years.
The defense of the government by the average person is hilarious to me, as is the shock expressed when they do something that crosses the line. That would be akin to having an abusive boyfriend who has cheated and hit you or others numerous times, only THIS time you are surprised that it happened. The outrage! It's par for the course.
Those were examples of people who have tried to commit terrorist activites or are most likely actively planning and encouraging such activities. Generally it's accepted intelligence that Bin Laden is still alive. The point is there are still people out there trying to harm us, regardless of how exaggerated the situation may be, it's still out there. Since there are people out there, and it would be "so easy" to attack us, why hasn't it happened? Obviously something is working, even if its only detterence.
Another successful attack would have devastating effects on our economy and change the screening process so much that we'd all be yearning for the what we have now. Last time a "handful" of people killed 3000(ish) others. They also triggered two wars that toppled a 25 year old dictatorship.
The simple fact is, people don't like being hassled and would happily go back to the days when their was 0 screening at airports. Then when the first one got blown up they wouldn't fly for six months and would be screaming about why the Gov. didn't do something.
This is getting repetitive, so I believe I'll step away from it.
charlottenh
03-24-2011, 10:05 PM
Those were examples of people who have tried to commit terrorist activites or are most likely actively planning and encouraging such activities. Generally it's accepted intelligence that Bin Laden is still alive. The point is there are still people out there trying to harm us, regardless of how exaggerated the situation may be, it's still out there. Since there are people out there, and it would be "so easy" to attack us, why hasn't it happened? Obviously something is working, even if its only detterence.
Another successful attack would have devastating effects on our economy and change the screening process so much that we'd all be yearning for the what we have now. Last time a "handful" of people killed 3000(ish) others. They also triggered two wars that toppled a 25 year old dictatorship.
The simple fact is, people don't like being hassled and would happily go back to the days when their was 0 screening at airports. Then when the first one got blown up they wouldn't fly for six months and would be screaming about why the Gov. didn't do something.
This is getting repetitive, so I believe I'll step away from it.
The fact that no attack has happened since is not evidence that the system is working. People's attempts were stopped with resources that existed prior to 9/11. Furthermore, it's well documented that the government WAS warned about the potential of a terrorist plot and chose to ignore the information or not follow up on the information. It was inaction when evidence of suspicious activity popped up that allowed it to happen, not some increase in national security since then.
People will ALWAYS try to harm other people, whether it be for religious reasons, bigotry, or to further a cause. That is the nature of humanity, but extreme preventative measures are not fruitful or particularly effective, and eventually the measures taken to prevent something with the expectation that it will NEVER happen again is unacceptable.
If another attack would change the screening process so much that we would desire what we have now, how does that make what we have now any more desirable than what we had prior? Doesn't that make the statement that the government is willing to continually push the line of what is acceptable for imagined safety?
9/11 did not trigger anything. It's blatantly obvious that they were simply waiting for any justification to go into the Middle East. That would be like saying "Well, you insulted me so I now have justification to punch you repeatedly in the face." How is that at all justifiable? It's evidence of a total and complete overreaction by the government.
Who cares what the uninformed general population thinks when it's not at all logical? People think all sorts of idiotic things and either way you are going to upset someone. If you lessen security and something happens, people will certainly beg for more and blame the government for not taking the steps. On the other hand, with each attack that does happen, the security becomes increasingly intrusive with no reliable evidence that it's working. The absence of an attack does not equal effectiveness. Will we have another attack on US soil? Sure we will, but it's taken place before then, and will take place afterwards. The issue then becomes how much of your rights are you willing to give up, because it's a slippery slope. Once they are taken away, you aren't getting them back.
I know this quote is overused, but it's rather applicable:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
jester214
03-24-2011, 11:28 PM
^I said I would step away but as a student of history that quote just pisses me off... Not only are there 25 different versions of it, no one is even sure if Franklin ever even said such a thing or of what context he might have said it in...
We use "evolving standards" when it's convenient but not when we don't like it.
charlottenh
03-24-2011, 11:37 PM
^I said I would step away but as a student of history that quote just pisses me off... Not only are there 25 different versions of it, no one is even sure if Franklin ever even said such a thing or of what context he might have said it in...
We use "evolving standards" when it's convenient but not when we don't like it.
I am fully aware of the questionable history of the quote, but it doesn't make it any less applicable. Would you have rather me not quote it at all and simply make the statement, because that would be rather dishonest.
In what context are you using the expression "evolving standards"?
Almost Jaded
03-25-2011, 10:54 AM
Regardless of who said it or when, it's a valid point to most students of philosophy OR history.
KS_Stevia
03-25-2011, 11:37 AM
Societies with the highest instances of carrying weapons historically have lower crime rates. The UK's unilateral gun ban did nothing to reduce violent crime. If the drunk or disorderly person pulls their weapon, 200 other people pull theirs - and everyone knows it. KS-Stevia says she'd use her sock on the person next to her - but they have one too, and so do the people around both of them.
Unless I knock his ass out first. Sure, I'd get detained, but...Or, maybe you're right. I just don't like the idea of the socks with cue balls. Booze is served on planes and some people are just assholes..to risk to let everyone be a vigilante. Plus, it also wouldn't protect against a remote detonation.
PS, I'd never do anything violent on a plane with no real good reason. ;)
jester214
03-25-2011, 07:59 PM
I am fully aware of the questionable history of the quote, but it doesn't make it any less applicable. Would you have rather me not quote it at all and simply make the statement, because that would be rather dishonest.
In what context are you using the expression "evolving standards"?
A lot of the creedence that quote get is because they think Franklin said it... Often when you strip the name from a quotation its impact is severely less dramatic. It get used a lot as a tool for people to say "See, the founding fathers wouldn't have like (insert anything) either!". It's just a pet peeve that goes back years... One of the quirks of being a History buff/nerd.
As to the evolving standards... I wasn't totally sober when I made that post... And while what I was thinking about would be applicable in a sense, to open it up further would really get us off topic, so just pretend I didn't go there. My apologies.
eagle2
03-27-2011, 03:15 AM
http://www.demotivatingposters.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/tsa.jpg
SupaByoch
03-27-2011, 04:01 AM
I'm sorry but I can't feel bad for you. They are doing this to protect us! Unfortunately the way the world is today, we have to go to extreme measures to prevent another 9/11... I am so sick of hearing people bitch about this! If they didn't do this and you got on a plane and it was taken over by a terrorist and your plane was heading for a building, then I bet all the people that complained about security measures would be begging to go back in time and get searched. It's better to be safe than sorry.
Holy crap is this a propaganda commercial or what? wow
OMG girl. You really need to read some truth and stop listening to the bullshit they're selling you on TV. This "security" bs has nothing to do with safety.
Israel's airport doesn't do all the so-called security searching that we have to go through in the US, and their airport is considered to be the safest in the world. It takes about a half hour to get from car to gate. This, in what is probably the airport "the terrorists" would MOST want to blow up.
All this bullshit we go through in US airports is complete and utter bullshit, just for show. Any asshole who wants access to a plane can just snag an airport ground crew employee ID, scan it in the little scanner at the door to the outside, and have full access to all the planes and anything in the airport he wants. No searches, no bag/body checks, not even a person to watch the door. Yet the passengers and flight crew have to practically strip down and either get molested or porno-scanned on the way to the gates. Ya, real safety going on here ::)
jester214
03-27-2011, 12:45 PM
Israel's airport doesn't do all the so-called security searching that we have to go through in the US, and their airport is considered to be the safest in the world. It takes about a half hour to get from car to gate. This, in what is probably the airport "the terrorists" would MOST want to blow up.
All this bullshit we go through in US airports is complete and utter bullshit, just for show. Any asshole who wants access to a plane can just snag an airport ground crew employee ID, scan it in the little scanner at the door to the outside, and have full access to all the planes and anything in the airport he wants. No searches, no bag/body checks, not even a person to watch the door. Yet the passengers and flight crew have to practically strip down and either get molested or porno-scanned on the way to the gates. Ya, real safety going on here ::)
Have you flown through Ben Gurion? By all accounts the process is vastly more intrusive (not physically) than any U.S. airport you go through. In addition they one have one main airport (Ben Gurion) which is not one of the 30 busiest airports in the world, and probably spend more on security than Atlanta or O'Hare.
Again if it's so easy to blow up planes, then why isn't it happening? There are people actively trying? Setting aside foreign terrorists, what about the whacko's and the Timothy McVeigh's or the D.B. Coopers? Almost 10 years and it hasn't happened. Those people didn't go away. At the very least it has been a detterent.
charlottenh
03-28-2011, 06:44 AM
Again if it's so easy to blow up planes, then why isn't it happening? There are people actively trying? Setting aside foreign terrorists, what about the whacko's and the Timothy McVeigh's or the D.B. Coopers? Almost 10 years and it hasn't happened. Those people didn't go away. At the very least it has been a detterent.
This is all speculation. The fact that there has been no attacks in the last 10 years does not show that the steps taken since 9/11 have any correlation, and certainly not the TSA. That is all a matter of coming up with a predetermined conclusion and looking for a connection oftentimes when there isn't one. Simply asserting something does not make it so. Furthermore, since you made the claim, it is on you to provide evidence, not the job of the other person to disprove you.
jester214
03-28-2011, 07:22 AM
This is all speculation. That is all a matter of coming up with a predetermined conclusion and looking for a connection oftentimes when there isn't one. Simply asserting something does not make it so. Furthermore, since you made the claim, it is on you to provide evidence, not the job of the other person to disprove you.
I agree with all of that. It is being stated that something is easy to do and that the current system doesn't work. Prove it? I didn't make the claim.
Until the current system fails and we have an attack then you can't say it is not working. Until someone "steals an I.D. badge" and fucks with the planes or the airports, that's just speculation. You can't go on about how "easy" it would be just because you THINK it would be easy.
I think you can draw a correlation between the increased security and the lack of a repeat attempt. Now that increased security doesn't just mean TSA or at airports, it means across the board, but I think the shift in airport security probably gets some of the credit.
Increased security does correlate to less incidents, imo less=working/safer. If you want evidence, then go look at the number of hi-jackings from the late 60's when there was relatively little security, to the decade ending in the late 90's (by which time there were signifcant increases in security) and you'll see a drop of more than half.
charlottenh
03-28-2011, 01:32 PM
I agree with all of that. It is being stated that something is easy to do and that the current system doesn't work. Prove it? I didn't make the claim.
Until the current system fails and we have an attack then you can't say it is not working. Until someone "steals an I.D. badge" and fucks with the planes or the airports, that's just speculation. You can't go on about how "easy" it would be just because you THINK it would be easy.
I think you can draw a correlation between the increased security and the lack of a repeat attempt. Now that increased security doesn't just mean TSA or at airports, it means across the board, but I think the shift in airport security probably gets some of the credit.
Increased security does correlate to less incidents, imo less=working/safer. If you want evidence, then go look at the number of hi-jackings from the late 60's when there was relatively little security, to the decade ending in the late 90's (by which time there were signifcant increases in security) and you'll see a drop of more than half.
What I am saying is that there has been an obvious resource repurposing or outright expansion in agencies (FBI, CIA etc) since 9/11. We had the resources before the TSA existed, and don't need another giant department that dwarfs the others in size and cost. Airlines also used to hire their own security as opposed to relying on the TSA also.
These 2 things combined could arguably function much better than any enormous government agency.
YOU made the claim that their is a correlation between the lack of terrorist attacks and the TSA, therefore it is you who has to provide the data, not the person who asks for the evidence to back up said claim. That is a little like asking "Prove to me that God doesn't exist." While attacks may have gone down, that doesn't establish a relationship between the forming of new agencies and the lack of attacks in this country, you are simply asserting so.
jester214
03-28-2011, 08:08 PM
What I am saying is that there has been an obvious resource repurposing or outright expansion in agencies (FBI, CIA etc) since 9/11. We had the resources before the TSA existed, and don't need another giant department that dwarfs the others in size and cost. Airlines also used to hire their own security as opposed to relying on the TSA also.
These 2 things combined could arguably function much better than any enormous government agency.
YOU made the claim that their is a correlation between the lack of terrorist attacks and the TSA, therefore it is you who has to provide the data, not the person who asks for the evidence to back up said claim. That is a little like asking "Prove to me that God doesn't exist." While attacks may have gone down, that doesn't establish a relationship between the forming of new agencies and the lack of attacks in this country, you are simply asserting so.
I don't totally understand your first part, but neither the FBI or CIA are dwarfed by the TSA in terms of cost. In fact the FBI and CIA most likely have a larger budget. I don't know personnel figures for the CIA (classified) but FBI employment is really not that far below TSA and when you consider the scope of TSA it really isn't surprising or inappropriate.
FBI, CIA, and Private Security (people complaining about who the TSA might be hiring, go read about Argenbright) failures contributed to the attack that set this all in motion in the first place.
Interesting how you didn't ask for evidence when people stated how "easy" it would be to stage an attack. Yet when I questioned that "hypothesis" you quickly started demanding "proof". Under the logic you use, there could never be any proof. It's like saying "I've never been sick, now prove preventive medicine ever kept me healthy".
eagle2
03-28-2011, 10:42 PM
This is all speculation. The fact that there has been no attacks in the last 10 years does not show that the steps taken since 9/11 have any correlation, and certainly not the TSA. That is all a matter of coming up with a predetermined conclusion and looking for a connection oftentimes when there isn't one. Simply asserting something does not make it so. Furthermore, since you made the claim, it is on you to provide evidence, not the job of the other person to disprove you.
So far, I haven't heard of a single terrorist attack being prevented by all of these extreme security measures, but in the two cases where terrorists did try to get explosives past security, they were successful both times.
Perhaps instead of spending all this time groping passengers who are obviously no threat, like the OP, maybe we would have more success if we used a common sense approach instead, such as not letting someone on a plane if his father and the State Dept. give a warning that he spent time in terrorist training camps.
Almost Jaded
03-29-2011, 03:34 AM
Which brings us to the "no fly" lists - a VERY dangerous precedent...
charlottenh
03-29-2011, 12:28 PM
I don't totally understand your first part, but neither the FBI or CIA are dwarfed by the TSA in terms of cost. In fact the FBI and CIA most likely have a larger budget. I don't know personnel figures for the CIA (classified) but FBI employment is really not that far below TSA and when you consider the scope of TSA it really isn't surprising or inappropriate.
FBI, CIA, and Private Security (people complaining about who the TSA might be hiring, go read about Argenbright) failures contributed to the attack that set this all in motion in the first place.
Interesting how you didn't ask for evidence when people stated how "easy" it would be to stage an attack. Yet when I questioned that "hypothesis" you quickly started demanding "proof". Under the logic you use, there could never be any proof. It's like saying "I've never been sick, now prove preventive medicine ever kept me healthy".
You are correct in stating that I did not question those that claimed that it would be very easy, and I should have, but if someone wanted to get the job done, why wouldn't they just detonate a bomb at the checkpoint?
With new training, why couldn't security be hired by the airlines do the same job without the government getting involved? If anything the lack of attacks gives credit to the other agencies stopping people before they ever reach the execution stage (we have numerous cases of this happening), thereby deeming the TSA rather impotent.
Your example is a bad one in that we have the technology to show the effects of preventative medicine (vaccines fall into this category) down to the molecular level. Preventative medicine is also such a HUGE category that we would have to dismantle every method used to discern how effective it actually is. I do understand what you are getting at however, but my position is this:
At what point do the side effects (evasive and aggressive approaches) outweigh the theoretical cure (body scanners, strip searches, a massive expansion of government power etc) so to speak. It is at this point theoretical as we have no public knowledge of a terrorist caught by the TSA, and with all of the public scrutiny the agency receives, it would make sense to make it a media bonanza from a PR standpoint. Any loss of freedom, which is for all intents and purposes permanent when it comes to the Federal Government, is unacceptable in my opinion. It's an aggressive and frankly cumbersome way of dealing with a complex issue.
Almost Jaded
03-29-2011, 12:48 PM
It all breaks down to people in power trying to look like they're doing something while not letting people know what they're really doing, like most things related to lawmakers these days.
I wrote an article about street racing a fe years ago for a national magazine. Guys racing their cars in back alleys and back roads is as American as apple pie as thy say, but after the first F&F movies came out there was this huge explosion of idiot punks endangering society with their antics. Or so we were told and saw on the news.
The truth my research uncovered was that the statistics didn't back the response. Not even close. A 2000% increase in racing incidents and accidents sounds bad - until you realize that that took the total number of such incidents from the double digits to the LOW triple digits.
Nationwide.
But that justified law enforcement agencies everywhere cracking down on the owners of sports cars and the federal government dumping tens of millions in grants to local law enforcement to create "street racing task forces". Laws were create on state levels giving cops the right to CONFISCATE - not impound but KEEP - someones car. Huge sting operations were organized that ended up being massive expenses with famously no results - the biggest bust in the country, over 40 cops and 2 weeks of planning costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, netted a few tickets and no related arrests.
One city started a program to let kids race at the local drag strip for $10 every weekend. Street racing incidents dropped by 2/3 within a month. Other cities followed suit with similar results.
The task forces, grants, and new laws are still there today.
More people are killed by drunk drivers in one medium sized city in one year than were killed by street racing or any other incident involving excessive speed in the first 4 years following the release of those movies - NATIONWIDE.
Priorities. Our government doesn't has good ones.
DesuvsDeath
04-20-2011, 08:31 PM
Got pulled over the other day. SO apparently looks enough like a trouble maker that we got pulled out of the car and patted down.
I have to say... the female TSA agent had me a lot more worked up than the female cop... who didn't even GRAZE my naughty bits.
I was quite disappointed.
4everresolutions
04-20-2011, 08:42 PM
^Rawr!
No worries. My boy apparently looks like a trouble marker too! A few a days ago he was stopped, searched and questioned while he was buying donuts. Cops insisted he bought drugs. He didn't. They felt him up good though. Maybe you should hang around Canadian donut shops if you want a really good feel-up! Haha.
Back to the original point of this thread; "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Franklin. Not sure if that quote has been posted yet or not.
Anastasia Foxx
04-20-2011, 08:44 PM
Actually, if you want to get technical, what the TSA is doing IS horrendous. Israel has it right and they do profiling, but they have very highly trained PROFESSIONALS in their airports doing the profiling. And last I heard, they've not had a plane hijacked since before many of you were born.
And when I say profiling, I don't mean by race, I mean by behaviour. No matter how well trained one is, there is always a "tell" when you are doing something you know is wrong and no matter what anyone says, even suicide bombers know it's wrong to kill innocent people.
jester214
04-20-2011, 10:54 PM
Actually, if you want to get technical, what the TSA is doing IS horrendous. Israel has it right and they do profiling, but they have very highly trained PROFESSIONALS in their airports doing the profiling. And last I heard, they've not had a plane hijacked since before many of you were born.
And when I say profiling, I don't mean by race, I mean by behaviour. No matter how well trained one is, there is always a "tell" when you are doing something you know is wrong and no matter what anyone says, even suicide bombers know it's wrong to kill innocent people.
Israel has ONE major airportn to watch! ONE! And it's not one of the 50 busiest airports in the world, yet I bet they spend more protecting it than Atlanta. They have an extremely vested isterest in keeping Ben Gurion safe, well beyond any airport in the world.
Almost Jaded
04-21-2011, 04:18 AM
Yeah - as much as I think the TSA in it's current form is a waste of - well, everything - the fact is people forget that most other nations are smaller than some of our medium sized states, lol.