backtop


Print 124 comment(s) - last by hashish2020.. on Jan 9 at 3:39 PM


  (Source: Associated Press)
Full-body scanning may be increased after terror attack on U.S. bound flight

With the failed Christmas Day attack fresh on the mind of many Americans, many are calling for increased security in our airports. Security is already increased in the post 9/11 world of air travel, but many Americans still don't feel safe.

Some lawmakers in Congress are calling for increased use of full body scanners that some claim would have detected the non-metallic explosive used by the Nigerian terrorist aboard the Detroit-bound flight on Christmas day. Reuters reports that Dutch authorities have announced that the Schiphol airport in Amsterdam -- where the terrorist boarded the flight bound for America -- will be using full body scanners within three weeks.

In America, President Obama could decree that the deployment of similar scanners in airports around the country be installed. At this point, only 19 airports around the country are using the full-body scanners and the use of the scanners is optional by the traveler. They can opt for pat down instead of using the full-body scanner.

No legislation from Congress is needed for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to deploy full-body scanners into the remainder of the 560 airports around the country that have scheduled airline service. Reuters reports that the terrorist attacks coupled with the call for increased security and additional full-body scanners in our airports is boosting the stock of some companies that build the scanners and related technology.

Whether or not passengers will be forced to go through the full-body scanners remains to be seen. That decision is not up to the TSA. TSA spokesman Greg Soule said, "That [mandatory full-body scanner use] would be a DHS decision. Clearly we would work with DHS, the White House and our congressional partners on security decisions."

Legislation limiting full-body scanning to secondary searches has passed the House of Representatives but has not passed the Senate. The ACLU says that it does not trust the safeguards in place to protect the privacy of passengers subjected to full-body scanning. The ACLU believes that unaltered images showing the shape of a person's body and genitals would still exist.

One ACLU privacy expert said, "If a celebrity goes through a scanner that kind of image could end up on the Internet."

The full body scanners blur the face and genitals of the person in the scanner and only the operator can see the images. The benefit for passengers to using the scanner opposed to a pat down is that the scanner takes 15 to 30 seconds while the pat down takes 3 to 4 minutes.

Chris Calabrese, an attorney with the ACLU, said in May 2009 when talking about using the scanner or a pat down, "A choice between being groped and being stripped, I don't think we should pretend those are the only choices. People shouldn't be humiliated by their government."

There is much research being put into developing better scanners today. Researchers at MIT have developed technology for a new breed of airport scanners that can tell the difference between items in luggage. The new scanner could for instance tell if a pill bottle holds over the counter pain medications or methamphetamines.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What are people so afraid of?
By DarthKaos on 12/31/2009 10:06:07 AM , Rating: 2
I hear all this talk about privacy and what not. Do people think the person looking at the scanner is going to greet you first then sit down to watch you go through the scanner? No of course that is not going to happen. No one will ever see the people looking at the images. You don't give any identification information at the time being inspected now so why would that change.

People will be anonymous individuals being viewed by individuals who will never see the person they are scanning except for the scan image. As long as there is the option for a pat down. Pat downs happen all the time and not just at air ports. They can happen before concerts, sporting events, while going into school, etc... If it makes traveling safe why not do it?




RE: What are people so afraid of?
By n0ebert on 12/31/2009 10:15:15 AM , Rating: 5
If someone wants to stare at my junk in the resolution that they'll be viewing my body at then more power to them. Perhaps I'll do a little dance for them while I'm at it.


RE: What are people so afraid of?
By Lord 666 on 12/31/2009 11:04:44 AM , Rating: 2
If Bill Clinton was still in office, he would volunteer time watching the "boob tube" and personally doing select pat downs.


RE: What are people so afraid of?
By Souka on 12/31/2009 11:19:02 AM , Rating: 5
I heard a report on the news that children under 18 will not undergo the scan due to child pr0nography laws...so nothings has changed.
Terrorists/crazies/bad people/etc will just use the kids as mules.

*sigh* more of my money spent.


RE: What are people so afraid of?
By Scabies on 12/31/2009 11:45:46 AM , Rating: 3
THAT'S interesting. If there is a clause to protect children against what could be used or misconstrued as Child Pornography or some form of minor-exploitation...
then the claims that the scanner renders people shapeless or with the questionable bits obscured is, indeed, bullshit?

(further, I thought the images were never saved, though I suppose if they were to hold any legal weight as evidence you would have to be able to make copies...? sounds like the 2008 election, one thing said, another thing done, amirite?)


RE: What are people so afraid of?
By Lord 666 on 12/31/2009 11:59:21 AM , Rating: 3
So whats stopping terrorists from using kids as walking bombs with PETN sewed into their Underoos?


RE: What are people so afraid of?
By Nfarce on 12/31/2009 12:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
RE: What are people so afraid of?
By Lord 666 on 12/31/2009 12:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
A PETN suppository would be completely undetectable. Would just need a place to put the catalyst; assuming a juice box to hold the liquid and use the straw to apply into PETN.

Disclaimer: Lord 666 is NOT a terrorist, but being involved in the information security business, sometimes have to think like these dirtbags that hurt innocent people for no reason


RE: What are people so afraid of?
By DigitalFreak on 12/31/2009 11:28:08 AM , Rating: 2
They'll need an XL scanner for mine. :0)


RE: What are people so afraid of?
By HrilL on 12/31/2009 6:50:52 PM , Rating: 5
meaning he really has a small package. Sorry to hear that.


RE: What are people so afraid of?
By Regs on 1/5/2010 12:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
In Newark a terminal was shut down because some guy walked passed security and no one cared. They shut down the terminal 2 hours after the event occurred...holy hell and they're putting in million dollar scanners while paying the people who watch over the terminal 15 dollars an hour.

Everything is arse backwards in this country.


RE: What are people so afraid of?
By omnicronx on 12/31/2009 11:20:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't give any identification information at the time being inspected now so why would that change.
What airports have you been through recently? You usually have to show at least your boarding pass, but I know when you go through Laguardia in NY they make you show your passport and boarding pass.

So its not like your name is filed with the image taken, but you surely do give up your identification information upon being checked.


By ClownPuncher on 12/31/2009 11:41:57 AM , Rating: 4
In the picture, the lady being scanned is standing right next to the lady doing the scanning. /shrug


RE: What are people so afraid of?
By TSS on 12/31/2009 3:12:12 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If it makes traveling safe why not do it?


You know your absolutely right! It'll work, just like the patriot act and the terrorist lists and wiretaps and extra security measures so far and cameras and profiling since 9/11 which stopped this terrorist from actually blowing up the plane!

Oh, wait....

I have a great idea. How about we Waterboard every single passenger for 6 straight hours! i mean you can't just ask terrorists if their terrorists, they'll just lie and say no. I'll bet, after 6 hours of torture, we'll catch a whole lot more of those terrorists dang nabbit!


RE: What are people so afraid of?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/31/09, Rating: -1
By thurston on 1/1/2010 12:04:56 PM , Rating: 1
Rush, Glenn and Bill must be so proud of you.


By marvdmartian on 1/4/2010 9:10:10 AM , Rating: 2
They should offer a "Going Commando" line, for those that walk around sans underwear! Quicker security for those that go without!! ;)


Points to consider
By UncleRufus on 12/31/2009 12:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
1) We aren't talking about safety here, but the illusion that people are working for your safety. Locks only keep out honest people. If someone is determined enough, they will get past any security system. For instance, in order to render me harmless, you would have to get rid of my large and well trained fists. I would argue that they are more dangerous than a knife in unskilled hands.

2) You can bet if Angelina Jolie is in line, you are going to have more dudes watching that monitor.

2b) Most people have, you know, seen a naked person before.

3) Every day, there are roughly 30,000 commercial passenger flights in the U.S. alone. If I said there was a million bucks in cash on one of those flights, most people would say "aww man, there's no chance I'd be on that flight". But if I said there was an angry brown person with a box cutter on one of those flights, everyone is sure that's the one they are going to be on.

4) Why does the headline mention Obama? I couldn't find much in the article about him. I understand that he probably has the authority to...umm...authorize these scanners, but I haven't seen any statement of intent. I keep seeing headlines that make it sound as if such action is 'imminent'.




RE: Points to consider
By UncleRufus on 12/31/2009 12:34:58 PM , Rating: 5
5) The reason many americans are scared of Muslims is that they don't come in contact with many of them. Honestly, when I was raised up in the Adirondacks, I never saw any black folks. Thus, though I never really thought about it, I sort of assumed that most black folks were tall, great at basketball, and had great voices, but were unpredictably violent. Of course that's all nonsense, as I later found out by living in Alabama for over a decade. But this is important: The only muslims that many of us see are the extremists on the nightly news. This is obviously not a true picture of what most Muslims are like, but it's not obvious to many people. There are people that truly believe that all Muslims are somehow 'out to get them'. It's just not the case.

These are people who have families, and work every day, and have to put food on the table, and are getting laid off like the rest of us, and worry about who their daughter is dating, or who their son is hanging out with, and how they are going to put their kids through school, etc etc..

If Glenn Beck went overseas and blew something up, would everyone suddenly strip search every Mormon that tried to get on a plane?


RE: Points to consider
By Nfarce on 12/31/2009 1:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason many americans are scared of Muslims is that they don't come in contact with many of them.


That's probably because 75-80% of Americans (depending on what "poll" you read) are Christians or identify themselves as such, whether practicing or not. But I take offense to your comment that most Americans are "scared" of Muslims. If that were the case, don't you think you'd be hearing more and more about Mosques in America being attacked and defaced?

quote:
If Glenn Beck went overseas and blew something up, would everyone suddenly strip search every Mormon that tried to get on a plane?


We'll cross that bridge when we get there, mmkay? Since the Munich Olympic murders in 1972 up to last week, there just haven't been many Mormons & other Christians blowing things up* and murdering innocents in the name of Jesus.

*Yes, the occasional rogue radical right wing abortion clinic bomber is included in the "just haven't been many" comment


RE: Points to consider
By Lerianis on 12/31/2009 3:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
The only reason that is NOT happening right now is that the Mosques have taken steps to PREVENT that... by only letting KNOWN PEOPLE or people in the company of a known person into the Mosques.

It isn't like Christian churches, where they are 'anyone can come and worship'..... no, they are VERY exclusive, these mosques and you have to KNOW SOMEONE who goes to them or speak to the priest AWAY from the Mosque first BEFORE you are allowed in.

That's coming straight from my one Muslim friend.... the Muslims have taken some steps to prevent violence against themselves.


RE: Points to consider
By Nfarce on 1/3/2010 12:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only reason that is NOT happening right now is that the Mosques have taken steps to PREVENT that


Okay I'll give you the Cliff Notes version: Most Americans are tolerant of other religions even though most Americans are Christians.

Clear enough?


RE: Points to consider
By tanishalfelven on 1/5/2010 3:34:59 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The only reason that is NOT happening right now is that the Mosques have taken steps to PREVENT that... by only letting KNOWN PEOPLE or people in the company of a known person into the Mosques. It isn't like Christian churches, where they are 'anyone can come and worship'..... no, they are VERY exclusive, these mosques and you have to KNOW SOMEONE who goes to them or speak to the priest AWAY from the Mosque first BEFORE you are allowed in. That's coming straight from my one Muslim friend.... the Muslims have taken some steps to prevent violence against themselves.

Bull shit.
The reason mosques aren't being burned is cuz most Americans are tolerant of other religions. I say that as a Muslim brown guy living in America.

and i have never been to a mosque (and will never go to one) that required me to know someone there and have connections. That goes against the very essence of the religion.


RE: Points to consider
By Solandri on 1/2/2010 6:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
*Yes, the occasional rogue radical right wing abortion clinic bomber is included in the "just haven't been many" comment

Aside from the bombing by Eric Rudolph, has there actually been any abortion clinic bombings in the U.S. resulting in a death? I've been researching this on and off for several years. There have been several shootings with fatalities, but the only bombing which seems to have caused fatalities or injuries was the one by Rudolph. He later carried out the bombing at the Atlanta Olympics, thus establishing that his primary motivation was killing people, not protesting abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violenc...

I don't condone the bombing of abortion clinics, but the people who are doing it seem to be being rather careful to avoid harming any people.


RE: Points to consider
By Nfarce on 1/3/2010 12:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I'm well aware of that fact. But you have to remember that most people just get their information from the lame stream media, and said media loves to prop up any abortion clinic murder/bombing and downplay radical Muslim murders like in Texas last fall.

Besides, every time I attempt to debate a left wing liberal on radical Islamic terrorism, just about all of them bring up radical right wing abortion clinic attackers and/or Christians.

The real funny ones attempt to tie radical Islam with the political right in America as both are "conservative."


RE: Points to consider
By hashish2020 on 1/4/2010 4:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
Did you all forget that really recent shooting of an abortion doctor in the Midwest?

And let's not forget there are many Christian terrorists (like the NFLT, http://www.stephen-knapp.com/thirteen_years_of_kil... the Lord's Resistance Army, BOTH sides of the Irish conflict)

Hell, Wadie Haddad was a CHRSITIAN TERRORIST, who planned many attacks against Israel, including planning the murder of 28 people in Tel Aviv.

So yea, Christianity and Islam are both backwards religions that inevitably lead to murder and expansionism, due to their monotheistic onemindedness and proselytizing ways...thankfully, western civilization reemerged despite Christianity's rise, largely due to retranslations (from Arabic, after Christians burned the tracts) of the works of relatively a-religious Greeks and eventually, the shunting aside of Christianity for humanism, secularism and the American Way.


RE: Points to consider
By Nfarce on 1/7/2010 12:22:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you all forget that really recent shooting of an abortion doctor in the Midwest?


Did you forget the midwest shooting of a military recruiter in the midwest?

quote:
Hell, Wadie Haddad was a CHRSITIAN TERRORIST, who planned many attacks against Israel, including planning the murder of 28 people in Tel Aviv.


That's 1. How many others? Uh huh.

quote:
So yea, Christianity and Islam are both backwards religions that inevitably lead to murder


If you want a tally since the 1970s on which religion in radical form has done FAR more damage, caused FAR more deaths of innocents, let me know. I'll give you a clue: of the hot spots on the PLANET right now, both from terrorism and wars in general, it is not Christianity that is in the lead - by FAR.

quote:
BOTH sides of the Irish conflict)


The "Irish conflict" was rooted in independence from the UK. Let me know when you see them hijacking airliners and flying them into buildings - or blowing themselves up in front of innocents for a greater "cause." And let's move beyond a kook organization in India, mmkay?


RE: Points to consider
By hashish2020 on 1/8/2010 6:30:00 PM , Rating: 1
"Did you forget the midwest shooting of a military recruiter in the midwest?"

No

"That's 1. How many others? Uh huh."

The Entire PLFP, DLFP, former Apartheid parties, the LRA, Tripura liberation front, not to mention the Aryan Nations who I have come face to face with in the streets of America and Canada, and who are dangerous and scary as fuck---I could go on

"If you want a tally since the 1970s on which religion in radical form has done FAR more damage, caused FAR more deaths of innocents, let me know. I'll give you a clue: of the hot spots on the PLANET right now, both from terrorism and wars in general, it is not Christianity that is in the lead - by FAR."

Let's be more arbitrary, who committed more terrorist acts from 1370-1409

And I love it when Christian sympathizers talk about the comparison with Islam---wow it is less violent NOW when most Christian nations are in fact SECULAR and LOST their religion (get it?) but yet it reminds me of a child rapist excusing their actions by saying "well that guy raped AND killed kids"

Who cares, evil religions are evil, period

"The "Irish conflict" was rooted in independence from the UK."

And Palestinian organizations are based on what? Giving blowjobs to clowns?

"And let's move beyond a kook organization in India, mmkay?"

As long as you move beyond the kook organization largely in Pakistan and Yemen with less than 10,000 followers (and by many accounts, less than 5.000)


RE: Points to consider
By Nfarce on 1/8/2010 10:54:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Entire PLFP, DLFP, former Apartheid parties, the LRA, Tripura liberation front, not to mention the Aryan Nations who I have come face to face with in the streets of America and Canada, and who are dangerous and scary as f**k---I could go on


When you see those wackos trying to blow up an airliner, or fly one hijacked into a skyscraper, or blow THEMSELVES up at a coffee shop, let met know. Okay?

Look. Here's a clue: of the top 10 hot spots and WARS on the FREAKING PLANET, which religion do you want to guess is behind all ten? We can go from Bosnia to Nigeria to the Far East.


RE: Points to consider
By hashish2020 on 1/9/2010 3:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
"blow up an airliner"

...Sikh extremists have done the same---is Sikhism part of the same existential threat?

Not to mention, what is the real moral difference between blowing yourself up in a coffee shop and doing what the Lord's Resistance Army does

"Media reports indicated that more than 400 people were killed,[1] many of them hacked into pieces,[4] decapitated,[5] or burned alive in their homes.[5] Several people reportedly had their lips cut off as a "warning not to speak ill of the rebels",[6] and two three-year-old girls suffered serious neck injuries when rebels tried to twist their heads off.[7] More than 20,000 people were reported to have been displaced by the attacks,[3][6][8] and at least 20 children were abducted by the LRA.[8][9] The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that as many as 225 people, including 160 children, may have been abducted and more than 80 women raped.[3]"

But no, it's ok because they didn't touch a PLANE

"of the top 10 hot spots and WARS on the FREAKING PLANET, which religion do you want to guess is behind all ten?"

First you say that it isn't religion that drives the religion based wars of Northern Ireland, then you turn around and blame the religion as being behind the wars over Palestine and Sheeba, behind the war in Darfur

Let me tell you about the world hot spots that are not the problem of ISLAM itself

Darfur
The Congo
How is BOSNIA/KOSOVO the fault of Muslims? Talk about blaming the victim
East Timor (but Indonesia is MUSLIM? Oh wait, the first war against the Timorese was supported by the West because the rebels were nominally communist)
Palestine (yes, such a religious war when secular and Christian parties like the DLFP and PLFP are part of the PLO)
Georgia...um good try
Yea, but obviously Chechnya is the fault of the Muslims who had their capital city indiscriminately bombed into rubble...three times
I didn't know the drug cartels in Mexico were Muslim
Or that Burmese Buddhist monks or the juanta were Muslim

You really need to learn something about the world that isn't from flight sim manuals and wargames, but reality

If you saw how most of the world starved, you'd realize that many times, religion is just an excuse to make tight knit groups to fight and survive

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the closest you have been to a "hot spot" or a "war" is Sandals, Jamaica, or a visit to Southern France


RE: Points to consider
By amanojaku on 12/31/2009 12:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
1) That's the reason profiling is a joke. It's already understood that the majority of terrorists understand the profiles and find ways to get around them. Like women and children bombers. Or using Caucasians. There shouldn't be a profile: screen everyone, and make the screening companies come up with faster, more reliable scanners. That don't fry our nuts.

2) These scanners aren't exactly practical if you want to get your rocks off. I guess I'm not enough of a pervert, which is strangely depressing.

3) That's a matter of opinion.

4) Because the TSA handles transportation security, and it falls under the control of the DHS, and the DHS Secretary is a member of the President's cabinet.


RE: Points to consider
By delphinus100 on 1/4/2010 12:29:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2) These scanners aren't exactly practical if you want to get your rocks off. I guess I'm not enough of a pervert, which is strangely depressing.


No, it just makes you choosy...

Besides, I have to think anyone with this duty would soon reach a saturation point pretty quickly, and grow a 'you've seen one, you've seen them all' attitude.

Ask a gynecologist.


Blame the other guy
By hiscross on 12/31/2009 10:50:56 AM , Rating: 4
Barry to Janet: "How do we respond?

Janet to Barry "The system worked"

Barry to Janet" Right we just go blaming the other guy"

Janet to Barry: "And might I add, no bathroom breaks!"

Barry to Janet "That's better than The system worked"

Janet to Barry" I'm glad fly on private planes, that odor is going to horrible on regular planes"

Barry to Janet: Ya, right, listen I have to go play golf with my friend Cheetah"




RE: Blame the other guy
By retrospooty on 12/31/2009 12:52:04 PM , Rating: 4
Right, you have no agenda there do ya?

Because Obama and Napolitano are directly responsible for who boards Dutch airplanes.

LOL... partisaned doofus.


RE: Blame the other guy
By Spuke on 12/31/2009 1:41:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Because Obama and Napolitano are directly responsible for who boards Dutch airplanes.
When I first heard this story I was confused because I couldn't figure out how Napolitano, regardless of what she said, had anything to do with security on this flight. Seriously, the terrorist boarded a Dutch flight. It seems there was a failure on the their end. I can understand that we could've improved intelligence sharing to them but it's ultimately THEIR responsibility to secure flights leaving THEIR country! Would the Dutch be responsible for flights leaving our country? I think not.


RE: Blame the other guy
By geddarkstorm on 12/31/2009 1:57:09 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. This whole thing about increasing security at /American/ airports when the breach happened at a /Dutch/ airport.. is kinda arse backwards. Add in the hysteria trying to be stirred up over this, that somehow the US government or security failed... when this is /another/ country we're talking about.. It just doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, now that we've seen an exploit, we can better guard internally for it, as I don't think we were properly prepared in house for that kinda thing anyways. But that doesn't change how ridiculous this whole affair has become.


RE: Blame the other guy
By thurston on 1/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Blame the other guy
By zsejk on 1/1/2010 2:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the doer board a flight in Lagos, with a transfer onto a Delta flight in Amsterdam? Correct me if I'm further wrong, but don't most transit areas in airports all over the world *not* have extensive scans and pat downs? As in, in such a flight with a transfer, wouldn't/shouldn't the heaviest security be at the first boarding city (in this case, Lagos)?

Regardless, this whole political discussion about US airpot security is just a fear-driven knee jerk reaction. Good to have the discussion, but more/better US security sure wouldn't have stopped this event.

-zsejk


RE: Blame the other guy
By geddarkstorm on 1/2/2010 1:17:01 AM , Rating: 2
I honestly don't know how transfers function for international flights. For domestic flights, there is no security after the initial boarding, though that may not be fully true on internationals (one can't control for the security inadequacies other countries may have, or differing procedures).

But yeah, that was also my point; the security needed to really stop this sort of thing isn't that common, but none the less, one can't say the US government or security is at fault when it was in /another country/. We can only say it has a similar flaw and potentially equal risk.


RE: Blame the other guy
By hiscross on 12/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: Blame the other guy
By retrospooty on 12/31/2009 6:10:43 PM , Rating: 4
Oh, so this happened because of liberalism?

So by that Logic, 9/11 was Bush's fault becasue he was in charge.

I get it.


RE: Blame the other guy
By Reclaimer77 on 12/31/09, Rating: -1
RE: Blame the other guy
By retrospooty on 12/31/2009 6:13:52 PM , Rating: 3
Asshole?

This guy wasnt in guantanimo shit for brains... Whether he was or wasnt you cant blame the president for every freegin terrorist strike that occurs while he is in office.

By that logic Bush is responsible for 9/11, and the anthrax mail attack, and the shoe bomb guy.


RE: Blame the other guy
By hiscross on 12/31/09, Rating: -1
RE: Blame the other guy
By retrospooty on 12/31/2009 8:57:36 PM , Rating: 2
thats a BIT too blamey for me...

Shit happens in this world. You cant foresee everything.

Yes, this guy was on the watch list and that info wasnt communicated to all the right places. It isnt Obama, or Napolitano's job to communicate the list to all, and make sure the right thing is done with it, and it isnt the "commissars" job to do that either. Its low level people that do that, and mistakes happened. They happen when humans do jobs, I am sure you have made mistakes at work too. I know I have. To blame Obama is just stupid. Like him, or not, agree with his policies or dont, but dont put shit that is out of his control on him.

Just curious. Do you blame Bush and conservatism for the 9/11 attacks? He was in charge, and he was warned about Bin Laden. He was also told that something big was being planned and did nothing... I dont personally blame him, because like I said, you cant foresee everything. Hindsight is 20/20.


RE: Blame the other guy
By thurston on 1/1/2010 12:12:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Whether he was or wasnt you cant blame the president for every freegin terrorist strike that occurs while he is in office.


Yes you can...if as you pointed out, the person doing the blaming actually has shit for brains.


RE: Blame the other guy
By retrospooty on 1/1/2010 1:34:21 PM , Rating: 1
LOL. True...

There are alot of SFB's out there blaming Obama for the economy. Like it was all just peachy in January 2009, then it went to hell.


RE: Blame the other guy
By Reclaimer77 on 1/3/2010 2:26:59 PM , Rating: 3
No, but we're blaming him for making it WORST. There are things you just absolutely do NOT do during a recession. You do NOT massively increase spending and debt, you do NOT increase taxes, and you do NOT put your bootheel on the throat of businesses and small business, especially during rampant unemployment.

Obama is not a moron. His goal, I'm sorry to say, is NOT to make things better. Because this has never, and can never, make the economy better during a recession with massive unemployment. Not in the United States.

Now as far as who's to blame FOR the recession, that's another story. But the fact is the Democrats held power in Washington for the last 3 years of the Bush presidency till current day. The same ones who boasted and preached that everything was magically going to get better now that they were in charge.

Democrats don't care about you or the economy, they only care about buying votes. That's the goal of health-care "reform" and Illegal Amnesty programs ; buying votes and broadening their power base.


RE: Blame the other guy
By Reclaimer77 on 1/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Blame the other guy
By Reclaimer77 on 1/2/10, Rating: -1
RE: Blame the other guy
By RaisedinUS on 1/1/2010 11:56:58 AM , Rating: 2
Funny, these same people you mention have NO problems blaming Bush for these same types of things......hmmmmm......
You can't have it both ways. Either the buck stops with Obama and then president Bush or it does not.
The problem is this: So many holes and provisions have been punched into the security protocols in the name of protecting children, and "other rights" that they miss the big picture; and terrorists fall through the large cracks. If these types of protections are going to work, they need to be enforced for everyone, all the time. I'm sick of the blame game, either protect us all or save the taxpayers billions and just forget about it.


Celebrities
By jdietz on 12/31/2009 10:18:47 AM , Rating: 2
I thought most celebrities use private jets. People flying on private or chartered planes are not subject to TSA screening.




RE: Celebrities
By Lord 666 on 12/31/2009 10:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
Been on several flights with celebrities on board. Plus, due to the economy, many have changed their flying habits to cut costs.

Even Sean Combs mandated commercial flying as corporate policy in 2008.


RE: Celebrities
By Nfarce on 12/31/2009 11:52:25 AM , Rating: 1
Puff Daddy claims he ditched his jet last year due to high fuel costs:


"Gas prices are too motherf******g high. As you know, I do have my own jet, but I've been having to fly back and forth to LA pursuing my acting career. Now, if I'm flying back and forth twice a month, that's like $200,000, $250,00 round trip. I'm back on American Airlines."


http://www.mtv.com/photos/p-diddys-jet-photos/1471...

A NY-CA coast to coast round trip would probably average 12 flight hours in his GIV SP (eastbound 5 hours with the jet stream tail wind, 7 hours westbound in the headwind). That's between $8,300-$10,400 per hour.

Wow.



RE: Celebrities
By Spuke on 12/31/2009 1:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the purpose for private aircraft was save time or increase flexibility over commercial flights. I understand it's expensive, but shouldn't he have considered the costs beforehand?


RE: Celebrities
By Lerianis on 12/31/2009 3:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
He probably did when the gas prices were less expensive. Times change and gas prices change.... they are probably just TOO HIGH for him to be doing it right now.


RE: Celebrities
By delphinus100 on 1/4/2010 12:15:47 AM , Rating: 2
That's a large part of the reason the Concorde ultimately failed commercially. It was designed at a time when aviation jet fuel was significantly less expensive (pre-1973 embargo). Had fuel stayed that cheap, it might've done much better.

(The other part being that potential carriers weren't allowed or willing to overfly land at supersonic speeds due to sonic boom issues, and wouldn't buy planes that could only be used on a few transoceanic routes. Any future commercial supersonic aircraft will have to be both fuel-efficient and sonic-boom quieter. Interestingly, this is easier to achieve with smaller planes, making a successful supersonic business jet a real possibility...)


RE: Celebrities
By BruceLeet on 12/31/2009 4:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
So a terrorist could load up anything on these private jets/charters?

Dodgy logic


latest waypoint in the terror/anti-terror arms race
By chromal on 12/31/2009 1:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
But I wonder if the full body scanners would have been particularly effective against some of the techniques al-Qaeda has already employed in 2009, like the bomb literally stuffed up one radical Islamic extremist's rectum. I suppose it's just a matter of time before they start doing subcutaneous implantation of bombs to evade scanner detection.




By Fred242 on 12/31/2009 2:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, however unpleasant it is I would always choose a pat down rather than an X-ray machine. There is no such thing as a safe level of radiation, and the effect is cumulative. More flights, more radiation, increase in cancer risk. This is just not acceptable especially for a young person or especially a child. And what about pregnant women? They say the level of radiation is low, which it is, but there is still a cumulative risk.


By Lerianis on 12/31/2009 3:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, there is such a thing as a 'safe level of radiation', and it's only IONIZING radiation that you have to be worried about, which these scanners do not use, at least the latest ones.

Also, there is NO farking cumulative risk unless you are flying 32 times a day! They've already said that, so please save the hysteria for a stupider website with stupider people posting on it.


By Solandri on 1/1/2010 12:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize, you get about the same radiation exposure from a transcontinental flight as you get from a chest x-ray? Planes fly above the densest part of the atmosphere, so you get increased exposure to cosmic radiation during your flight. Over the 4-5 hours of a transcontinental flight, your exposure is about the same as a chest x-ray.

If you're that paranoid about radiation, you should be driving instead of flying. Heck, you shouldn't even leave the house for fear of sunlight. Unless your house is in one of the many areas where the granite rocks contain slightly higher amounts of naturally occurring uranium.

Anyhow, one type of full body scanner uses terahertz radiation, not x-rays. And the type which does use x-rays uses far less than a medical x-ray (and hence what you'll be exposed to on your flight) since it constructs images from reflected x-rays, not on x-rays which make it through your body.


By hashish2020 on 1/4/2010 3:57:39 AM , Rating: 2
Um, you do realize there is a difference between X-Rays and magnetic resonance imaging right?

And people on here are supposed to be more technically informed than the general populace. Another reason to mandate more lab and math courses in high schools.


replacement for current methods?
By n0ebert on 12/31/2009 10:04:55 AM , Rating: 2
So if they implement these full body scanners will they remove the other methods that would then just be pointless?




RE: replacement for current methods?
By DarthKaos on 12/31/2009 10:06:47 AM , Rating: 2
Good point. That would surly help make things move along more smoothly.


By callmeroy on 12/31/2009 11:19:00 AM , Rating: 2
that's my question...my concern with this is only because I hate airports to begin with -- don't like the hectic nature of trying to get to the gate on time, etc.....the last thing I want to see is another "layer" of security that just adds even more time to the whole airport experience.


Sick of it
By kart17wins on 12/31/2009 6:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
I am so sick of the PC garbage and the ACLU
Scan everybody, no exceptions.

Flying is not a right. If you don't like it don't fly.




RE: Sick of it
By BikeDude on 1/1/2010 6:09:17 AM , Rating: 2
What worries me is this: Whether someone attacks the airplane or the train I am currently using is of no concern to me: I will be dead as a doornail either way.

What I am trying to say, if airplanes need this high level of security, then surely trains do to.

Next are buses, subways and any vehicle capable of carrying more than four people.

Finally, in the city I live, there are a couple of places where many people gathers. Shopping malls, town square, abortion clinic, pr0n store, etc. They are all potential targets.

Surely then, by using pure logic, we must conclude that we need these body scanners on every street corner, to protect us against this new influx of assplosives. (a plastic explosive that has been in use since the first world war... Gee, the security guys were surprised by this..?)

Oh, btw: I am being kind of sarcastic, even though I kind of agree with you. I prefer driving my own car for distances less than 2500km. It is not very practical, but considering all that wasted time in airports, it is often worth it.


RE: Sick of it
By delphinus100 on 1/4/2010 12:24:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I am trying to say, if airplanes need this high level of security, then surely trains do to.

Next are buses, subways and any vehicle capable of carrying more than four people.


And trains have been attacked before, with carry-on bombs. Even a cruise ship has been hijacked.

Which leads us to the question of terrorists possibly adopting Somali piracy or using more USS Cole-type suicide attacks...


Physical Security....
By TheEinstein on 1/2/2010 1:16:45 PM , Rating: 3
I am an expert here, even in court I would have to testify as an expert. Enough said there.

To make an aircraft impossible to blow up you would need to stop shipping air freight, passengers, and even crew members. Even stop flying.

Aircraft are remarkably fragile targets, and remarkably easy at certain altitudes. There is no innate safety to be expected on them, just quick transit (I would add comfortable except anything but first class anymore is not comfortable!)

You can reduce the risk of air travel, but then people start thinking 'what if' type stuff. 'What if I go through that full body scanner?'

Well what if that scanner sent data to a enclosed room where prior to entry the employee had to show they had no communication or recording devices, where they receive data and cannot understand who they are seeing, where they can green light a given full body scan or red light it, or yellow light for a 'pat down for cause' (Red light being gun, bomb, or obvious illegal item).

But people who think they can make a stir will not accept this, people who are uncomfortable being seen 'electronically naked' will have issues with this (even if there are gender specific entrances with a same sex monitoring person in a separate room from the other sex monitoring center), people who have illegal motives will also make a stink as much as they can without giving away their hand, and so forth.

Yet this is only part of the solution and part of the problem.

Some say 'sniffers' will find anything. I can make a package, use a secure system (I wont post here how unless truly pushed by respectable questioning), have a sealed bomb that is in no way tracable via a sniffer attached to my 'peace loving brother', and watch as people wonder how he did it.

The ultimate problem is if we actually hired someone like me, spent the hundreds of billions it will require to make security as effective as it can be, there will still be a plane going down one day... the first of many I am sure.

Lets see future means:

1) Surgical insertion of bombs (provided we do cavity searches often enough to make cavity carrying dangerous)

2) Missiles for dummies... Yeah you can fire a bunch of those Palestine rockets in a semi-random pattern and have a good chance to hit something, like a shotgun at the sky, and they eventually come down, for a two-fer.

3) Smart missiles gone wild (Goto Denver, have fun in the future wondering if you will get shot down with 10 other aircraft in one volley!)

4) UAV havoc... Buy a little remote controlled aircraft, plan your effort well and you to might do severe damage to the engine of a 747!

5) Use your Iranian nuclear warhead... oh maybe thats a little overkill

Regardless... my sayings will always hold true:

"You can never have perfect security, you can just have affordable security".

"The only way to truly be safe from a fanatic is to show him you truly will destroy him, his family, his friends, his home, his valuables, his culture, his nation, his religion, and anything else he holds dear."




RE: Physical Security....
By hashish2020 on 1/9/2010 3:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
"The only way to truly be safe from a fanatic is to show him you truly will destroy him, his family, his friends, his home, his valuables, his culture, his nation, his religion, and anything else he holds dear."

A fanatic holds nothing dear, because he assumes he has lost everything already

And if you think destroying a fanatic's culture is ok, please exit my country and go to places in the Balkans or Africa where cultural.race wars are part of the makeup

I'd rather have a .0001% chance of dying on a plane than sacrifice the basic meaning of what it is to be free in the West


US intelligence...
By croc on 12/31/2009 5:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
US intelligence agencies had all the information they needed to stop the 11 Sept 2001 attacks, they just failed to heed the warning signs. Intelligence failure.

US intelligence had all the information they needed to stop this latest attempt, provided, no less, by the attacker's father to the US embassy in Nigeria. Intelligence failure.

Maybe the US should concentrate on fixing the REAL problem, their intelligence agencies' various failures.




RE: US intelligence...
By grath on 1/1/2010 1:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
Every second of every day for the entirety of human history an intelligent person is being ignored by a bureaucrat or politician. Intelligence agencies are run by bureaucratic politicians who ultimately decide whether or not to act on the intelligence and analysis available. If as you say all the information was available to the agencies, then it was not an intelligence failure, it was a bureaucratic and political failure. Do not confuse the people paid to generate intelligence with the people paid to ignore it.


Damned terrorists...
By amanojaku on 12/31/2009 10:03:41 AM , Rating: 2
And you wonder why the TSA is always so rude.

http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=4e0ce...




hegelian dialect.
By stilltrying on 12/31/2009 3:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
Ah the old hegelian dialect still working well.




It's come to this
By kyleb2112 on 12/31/2009 7:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
"Strip naked and get on the probulator."
-Leela




Land of the free?
By PascalT on 1/3/2010 5:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
Must be nice to live in America, where fear takes over freedoms.




retarded
By deraj on 1/6/2010 12:14:02 AM , Rating: 2
wouldnt an attacker just need to board a plane in a different country whos destination is somewhere in the US?




No Way
By L1011 on 12/31/09, Rating: -1
RE: No Way
By retrospooty on 12/31/2009 10:44:08 AM , Rating: 3
"Remember, not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim. "

Tim McVie and the Unibomber might disagree with that.

Point taken that MOST terrorists are muslim, but there are homegrown ones too... And also, there are disillusioned American citizens that go over to the other side as well. I cant remember his name, but he was known as the American Taliban. The point there being "Muslim" is a faith, not an ancestry, they arent all middle eastern.


RE: No Way
By thurston on 1/1/2010 12:28:48 PM , Rating: 2
John Phillip Walker Lindh


RE: No Way
By sumant19 on 12/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: No Way
By AEvangel on 12/31/2009 12:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I strongly advocate use of such scanners.


LoL...yeah cause I'm sure that their safe and wont have any adverse effect on me.

Sorry, you can go through it, I will pass since I'm not sure that the repeated use wont cause some problems.

Not to mention this is an invasion of my privacy.


RE: No Way
By theslug on 12/31/2009 10:50:34 AM , Rating: 5
Profiling is a terrible idea. Can't judge a person based on what others of his or her particular race did before.


RE: No Way
By callmeroy on 12/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: No Way
By room200 on 12/31/2009 11:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
Well since we're talking about numbers; your plane, statistically, is not likely to be attacked by terrorists. So why check people at all since the chance of your plane being blown up is so miniscule?


RE: No Way
By jRaskell on 12/31/2009 12:21:15 PM , Rating: 5
Your entire post represents a serious lack of understanding the entire point of this country's Constitution. No surprise really though, since most Americans (or most people in general) lack that understanding.


RE: No Way
By Nfarce on 12/31/2009 12:44:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
No surprise really though, since most Americans (or most people in general) lack that understanding.


You can include politicians in that group of Americans as well - especially lately.


RE: No Way
By Lerianis on 12/31/2009 3:18:52 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, no, you cannot... the fact is that while SOME people say that what the feds are doing is 'unconstitutional', the fact is that the lawyers, judges, etc. have said "Hey, it's fine by the Constitution!" when they were asked 'off the record'.

That applies to mandating that people have to have health insurance and mandating a lot of other things as well. It falls under that whole 'to promote the general welfare' clause of the Constitution, which can basically be expanded to cover nearly ANYTHING that the lawmakers wish to do.


RE: No Way
By Nfarce on 1/3/2010 12:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It falls under that whole 'to promote the general welfare' clause of the Constitution, which can basically be expanded to cover nearly ANYTHING that the lawmakers wish to do.


And that is entirely my point. Many of today's politicians have NO CLUE what the original interpretation of the Constitution is. Words in 1787 had a different meaning than today, including "general welfare."

But don't let that stop the fascist and Marxist movement in America we are witnessing now.


RE: No Way
By rmclean816 on 12/31/2009 1:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
you realize you just did the same thing he was doing right?


RE: No Way
By retrospooty on 12/31/09, Rating: -1
RE: No Way
By cmdrdredd on 12/31/09, Rating: -1
RE: No Way
By Lerianis on 12/31/2009 3:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, they do deserve the protections of our constitution. Our constitution specifically says that any foreign nationals in our country or on our soil (our planes would fit into this category) are treated the same as citizens under our Constitutional protections.

As to profiling 'working'.... no, it doesn't. Background checks on all Muslim people coming from known 'terror supporting' states work.... profiling does not.

Just because someone is a Muslim does NOT mean that they are a suicide bomber, and even if you catch one... it is SERIOUSLY unfair to the other 10,000 who were inconvenienced to catch that one person.


RE: No Way
By Ard on 12/31/2009 1:42:14 PM , Rating: 3
You can try to paint racial profiling in the guise of statistical analysis all you want but the fact remains that it is still racial discrimination. You're targeting a specific group of citizens in this country based solely on the actions other members of their race have, largely, committed in other countries. Why don't we profile all the Timothy McVeigh looking white men while we're at it? Would that be fine with you as well or would you suddenly have a chance of heart if you fit that mild-mannered description? Why don't we just take this to its logical conclusion and search anyone in the same race as someone who has tried to blow up something or commit an act of terror? That would give us Middle Easterners, white men and teenagers (McVeigh and Columbine), Koreans (VA Tech shooting), black men (since the most recent bomber was Nigerian). Let's just profile them all.


RE: No Way
By callmeroy on 12/31/2009 2:40:19 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not hurt that everyone (or at least a lot) are railing against my post on this. I don't change my view 1% -- profiling when based on facts is good law enforcement work. Period.

Btw, I accept that door swinging both ways -- if the crime stats and all the known facts and evidence point towards someone of my race, height, age, etc. I'll accept a cop stoping to profile me.

The constitution says NOTHING against profiling, it speaks about discrimination --- profiling is NOT discrimination. That's the fact YOU folks don't understand.

Also what you don't understand is some of you are just being silly --- profiling should be done only on DATA, collected data -- WTF you think wanted posters are based on? Should we stop posting those too?

Anyone commenting "well then let's just pull every asian over, or stop ever black, or muslim or whatever" -- understand that if THAT's what you think I'm saying then you do NOT understand what I'm saying.

Don't be dumb. Pull over all the asians -- in an area IF THAT'S WHAT CURRENT INTEL IS POINTING AT...

Profiling also doesn't mean ONLY look at where the data points --- again you folks are thinking FAR FAR FAR too simply.

Profiling is nothing but being smart.

Again -- if you think its against the constitution its not me that doesn't understand it -- its YOU!

PLEASE PLEASE rate me down on this more -- I actually smile because it means I hit a nerve and on this one the "disagreement" confirms I'm right. :) its great.


RE: No Way
By Lerianis on 12/31/2009 3:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, the 'disagreement' does not 'confirm' that you are right.... if anything, it confirms that you are WRONG. The touching a nerve thing is right... the proving you right just because you are 'touching a nerve' is not correct, period and done with, argument over, SHUT UP!

Racial profiling is KNOWN to NOT keep ANY crimes from happening and just inconvenience loads of people. EVEN THE GODDDAMNED POLICE AND FBI say that, that it is WORTHLESS and that it should NEVER be used.

Now, if you have information that 'a black man raped a white girl, he has a long beard, pierced ears, etc.'... then that is NOT racial profiling.

Profiling is simply discrimination, it is AUTOMATICALLY assuming that just because someone fits into a 'category' that someone made up (usually by TWEAKING THE NUMBERS OR IGNORING NUMBERS!) that they are 'criminals'.... doesn't work that way, and that is why the courts are SLAMMING down hard on racial profiling.


RE: No Way
By ClownPuncher on 12/31/2009 3:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
Should we make them sew a star of david into their jackets so we can recognize them, since Islam is not a race, but a faith? Or maybe we decide that it isn't the faith, but rather the ultraconservative radicals who are clearly chemically imbalanced.


RE: No Way
By BikeDude on 1/1/2010 6:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm...

Christianity and Islam are the two most violent religions out there. I hail from Scandinavia, and like England our state churches are of the Lutheran kind. Martin Luther wrote at least one book about the importance of burning Jewish synagoges. But to "our" defense, very few Lutherans realize this.

The Koran has its roots in the old testament. The muslims accepts Jesus as on of the most important prophets. The differences between Christianity and Islam are not many.

The difference however is that the Koran is quite explicit when it comes to the Jews. "Allah stamped wretchedness upon the Jews because they killed the prophets and disbelieved Allah's revelations. 2:61" (from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/int/long.h... -- you'll find plenty more).

The muslims are tought to believe that God wrote the Koran. The Koran is God's final word. To speak against the Koran is heresy. The muslims put down a council of learned men (not women of course, we all know that women are no good) to interpret the words of God. Long story short: The muslims KNOW they are right. They also know all of God's intentions and commands by heart. They base all their knowledge and science around the thesis preached by these men more than one thousand years ago. Basically time has stood still for these guys.

There are Christians that behave in similar manner too. Christians who are basically stuck in the bronze age. We all know about those cooks who think dinosaurs walked among men... These guys have mastered the usage of the 24 hour clock, but have problems interacting with a calendar.

If we look at a typical muslim society, even one as westernised as Turkey (a Nato member!), it soon becomes apparent that their level of educaton leaves a lot to be desired. 70%+ of the people do not understand that man shares a common ancestry with apes. (Granted, a great many in the US shares similar views, but many terrorists also tend to hail from the US... No abortion clinic should feel safe over there)

We need to educate these people, but in my country, they seem to stick to their old belief systems and rarely break out of their fantasy world. I've seen med school students who defend "the women's right to wear hijab" all the while refusing to realize that many of these women are beaten by their brothers and dads if they refuse to wear the hijab. It then becomes a great challenge to a somewhat democratic society to protect the rights of the many against the delusions of the few. You'd think that the muslims seeking higher education would realize a few things about religion, but apparently not so. To complete this picture, it must be said that they (in my city) have Koran-schools where children gets administered corporal punishment if they fail to memorize the bloody thing (I'm referring to the Koran).

I am a liberal at heart.

But.

The more I learn about Islam, the more I interact with muslims, the stronger my fears grow. I do not approve of body scans. I do not approve of denying people to bring water onboard airplanes (I've been dehydrated more times than I care to count).

I am tempted to propose that every passenger is subjected to a quiz about evolution. Only those who understand this topic should be allowed to board. Problem solved.


RE: No Way
By Schrag4 on 12/31/2009 3:50:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can try to paint racial profiling in the guise of statistical analysis all you want but the fact remains that it is still racial discrimination....Why don't we profile all the Timothy McVeigh looking white men while we're at it?


I'm merely playing devil's advocate here - if "Timothy McVeigh looking white men" committed the majority of terror attacks then those that "try to paint racial profiling in the guise of statistical analysis" would push for profiling them. I'm not taking sides here, just poiting out why profilers wouldn't target white males.


RE: No Way
By glitchc on 1/1/2010 12:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
Wonderful bit of logic...

And child molesters are mostly white. So pony up your PC(s) because we need to scan it/them for kiddie pr0n. The door swings both ways, doesn't it?


RE: No Way
By SilthDraeth on 12/31/2009 2:10:25 PM , Rating: 3
You act like profiling is only profiling race, or religion, or color of skin.

Things that one might look for, when attempting to notice a criminal might be...
Nervous behavior, twitching, clenching fists, looking around constantly, buying a one way ticket at the Airport to a foreign country and having no luggage...


RE: No Way
By callmeroy on 12/31/2009 2:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree - its way more than race, I like to mention race heavily though because that's the "trigger" that sets most people off when the topic of profiling is raised.


RE: No Way
By Lerianis on 12/31/2009 3:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
Profiling based on 'suspicious behaviors' is okay... as long as you are not just finding those behaviors 'suspicious' because the person in question is black, white, Muslim, Jewish, etc.

If you were talking ABOUT YOURSELF.... and those suspicious behaviors would be suspicious.... okay, then stop and question the person in question!

However, even looking for 'nervous behavior, twitching, clenching fists, etc.'.... is worthless, because there are people like myself, who have a little thing called "Social Anxiety Disorder" where were are basically PETRIFIED when we are in an area with a lot of people! So we do ALL those things, even though we are NOT criminals..... DISCRIMINATORY AGAIN!

So, your argument is render moot even on those 'suspicious behaviors'. We would do better to do VERY GOOD criminal background and terrorist connection assessments on people before they are allowed into this country.
That would prevent 99% of these things from happening.


RE: No Way
By Reclaimer77 on 12/31/2009 5:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Profiling is a terrible idea. Can't judge a person based on what others of his or her particular race did before.


How many 80 year old white grandmothers have hijacked and/or blown up a plane ? I'm just curious...


RE: No Way
By KCjoker on 12/31/2009 6:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
When kids get kidnapped they PROFILE....white males in their 30's to 40's. For some strange reason that's ok...I wonder why that is. BTW I'm not against it profiling in either scenerio.


RE: No Way
By callmeroy on 12/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: No Way
By callmeroy on 12/31/2009 11:16:59 AM , Rating: 2
lol and now that I think about it if its an xray they'll just seen your bones....(and if you are packing weapons of course)....really if you have nothing to hide...why worry?


RE: No Way
By thurston on 1/1/2010 12:56:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
really if you have nothing to hide...why worry


So you have no problem with the police stopping by and searching you home on a weekly basis. I'll tell you why to worry, because this little thing we have called the Constitution that protects us from being searched unless there is a very good reason. I am so sick of people shitting on the Constitution just to FEEL safe. If we destroy the Constitution in the name of fighting terrorism then the terrorists win.


RE: No Way
By room200 on 12/31/2009 11:38:36 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. To hell with the United States Constitu....on second thought, you're full of crap.


RE: No Way
By omnicronx on 12/31/2009 11:38:57 AM , Rating: 2
Plain and simple, don't fly..

Heck by your logic, why wear seat belts while driving? I mean you know the risk, but why give up your freedoms and wear something mandated by the government? You could fly through your windsheld, fly 50 feet and hit a lamppost and take 40 minutes to bleed out, but hey as long as it does not infringe on your freedoms!
quote:
The smart solution would be to forget this politically correct crap, stop caving into the useless ACLU, and to start profiling people at security checkpoints. Remember, not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.
You are a complete and utter moron, every race, religion etc etc has an extremist wing. There are 1.5 BILLION Muslims worldwide, do you really think screening for a few bad apples is justified? Anyone can be a terrorist, and if we start screening those with darker skin, wouldn't you think they would just find Muslims with lighter skin to do the dirty work?

Furthermore its not like this doesn't already happen, those 'random' checks are not so random IMO.


RE: No Way
By L1011 on 12/31/2009 1:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if I'm a moron, let me do the profiling and you can live in your politically correct, coddle the terrorists, take away more and more freedom society. At least my approach to a problem is more effective. Profiling works.

And seatbelts aren't mandated by the state of NH. I wear one because it's common sense, but I don't need the government telling me I need to wear one. NH's Motto is 'Live Free or Die" and I firmly believe in that phrase. I choose to live freely and that means resisting things like seat belt laws and full-body scanners, the former being a nanny law and the latter being a massive invasion of my privacy. It's strictly principle.

Slightly off topic - Ask Sweden how their mass influx of Muslim "refugees" is going for them. Ask them about the massive violence perpetrated by those lunatics and how ambulance drivers are refusing to go into Muslim-dominated neighborhoods in Sweden. Ask them how many Swedes have been killed by radical muslims. And those people STILL welcome them into their country. It just doesn't make sense.


RE: No Way
By amanojaku on 12/31/2009 1:59:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
you can live in your politically correct, coddle the terrorists, take away more and more freedom society

I don't need the government telling me I need to wear one

'Live Free or Die" and I firmly believe in that phrase

I choose to live freely and that means resisting things like seat belt laws and full-body scanners, the former being a nanny law and the latter being a massive invasion of my privacy.
But you're in favor of profiling that takes away the freedoms of a group. Hypocrite much?


RE: No Way
By Lerianis on 12/31/2009 3:38:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hit the nail on the head.... the people who are calling for the profiling of Muslims miss the fact that ANYONE can be a terrorist today..... Muslim, Jewish, etc.

It's just that we USED to call them simply MASS MURDERERS... then, they were given a more 'fearful' name in order to hype up the conservacreeps in this country and make them appear to be more of a 'danger' than they actually were!

To be blunt.... I am more worried about a SATELLITE falling out of the sky and hitting me on the head, killing me, than I am of being killed by a terrorist.

It might ALSO help if our country STOPPED pissing off the Muslims by killing and imprisoning without trials their family members. That just creates MORE terrorists by making US appear to be the bad guys.


RE: No Way
By Drexial on 12/31/2009 3:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

Freedoms are all or nothing, either everyone should have them or no one. Meaning, you are only allowed to take away what you yourself are willing to give up. If you aren't willing to be scanned when walking through a security checkpoint, they you don't have the right to say someone else should.

We spent 7 years listening to someone tell us they attacked because they hated our freedoms, and then spent plenty of time taking freedoms away. Hypocrisy is seems to be the way of the people.


RE: No Way
By Reclaimer77 on 12/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: No Way
By n0ebert on 1/1/2010 11:11:50 AM , Rating: 4
Please, please, PLEASE stop posting on this site. Between your Fox News level 'facts' and you berating and insulting everyone because you cannot think of a more intelligent quip are making my brain cells beg for mercy.

You do realize that every one of those racist groups in America (such as the KKK) are christian based terrorist groups who bomb churches and other buildings, right? That's only one form of the extremist christian groups out there. Try doing a simple Google search before making a post that it's only Muslim. They are considered EXTREMIST groups by the US Government.


RE: No Way
By thurston on 1/1/2010 1:05:28 PM , Rating: 3
With all the fear-mongering you do, you should be labeled a terrorist.


RE: No Way
By MadMan007 on 12/31/2009 1:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that darn ACLU and their getting all happy about full body scanners (not):

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/afterma...

Less knee jerk rightwing misconceptions and more facts please.


RE: No Way
By RMSistight on 12/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: No Way
By Lerianis on 12/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: No Way
By shaw on 12/31/2009 4:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
If we did racial profiling the only people who would be allowed to fly are Asian Atheist.


RE: No Way
By Samus on 12/31/2009 5:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
The terrorists want just this. To change our way of life. Implementing any security measures that are not 100% transparent to civilians basically means the terrorists win.


RE: No Way
By Omega215D on 1/2/2010 1:03:30 AM , Rating: 2
look up Adam Freeland - Mind Killer the music video is a very good example of what britain and the u.s. have become

"Fear is the mind killer"


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki