Feds Mess With Texas; TSA Showdown Could Explode

[LadySkinsFan]

I'm pretty sure I saw an article about three months ago that said the reason Israel's security is so much more effective is that they use profiling to choose the passengers they'll question. That would never work in the US.

Isn't the no fly list a kind of profiling? And I'm sure they profile, but also pull some unsuspecting and unsuspected people out to keep the flying sheeple in line.

Put a frog in a pot of hot water and it'll jump out immediately. Put a frog in a pan of cool water and warm it slowly and it will sit there until it's too late. We are in the pot warming slowly, my friends.

[Hubbs]

No, I'm in favor of them searching for weapons, in places where terrorists have successfully concealed weapons in the past.

Right. My underwear. (And, you know,

Also

)

Come to think of it, there was a terrorist who hid a small bomb inside his anus and tried to detonate it near some member of the Saudi royal family a few years ago. So we'd better make sure to cover that, too. And the naked X-rays can't detect things hidden inside the body, so I guess the rubber glove industry will be getting a nice surge of customers.

It's completely and utterly impossible to have privacy rights and also search every last place a terrorist could hide a bomb. At some point, you have to pick one or the other.

So, just to be clear, you're all in favor of the government knowingly ignoring security holes, after terrorists have successfully exploited the hole, and after all the other terrorists have seen the hole exploited?

Yes, we'd better make sure the TSA examines every last hole.

Should we start allowing box cutters back on airplanes, too?

Of course. Because if I don't want the TSA examining my "security hole," I want 9/11 to happen again.

Now that we're done trying to claim that each other are saying things that they aren't saying . . .

Near as I can tell, at present we have exactly three options:

1) Search people's crotches, manually.

2) Search people's crotches, electronically.

3) Allow terrorists to "pack" explosives on board aircraft.

Your preference is . . . ?

Hmmm. Those sound exceedingly similar to the choices you might have if you go to the mall. Or ride on a bus. Or decide to spend a day at the fan-friendly Mecca (perhaps a poor choice of examples) that is FedEx Field.

Your Obstructed View seats now come with a free pair of these:

[Larry]

Hmmm. Those sound exceedingly similar to the choices you might have if you go to the mall. Or ride on a bus. Or decide to spend a day at the fan-friendly Mecca (perhaps a poor choice of examples) that is FedEx Field.

Your Obstructed View seats now come with a free pair of these:

Notice you didn't answer the question.

In fact, I notice that your entire post consists of nothing but anal references. Perhaps this explains why your view is obstructed?

[Hubbs]

Notice you didn't answer the question.

In fact, I notice that your entire post consists of nothing but anal references. Perhaps this explains why your view is obstructed?

It's full of anal references because terrorists - and other violent criminals - have already hid weapons and explosives inside their anus. And because this area is such a personal part of the human body, it's the natural part to focus on when I'm being told that security agents must examine any part of the body which has been used to further violent acts.

I mean, I could spend time talking about thoroughly screening the people who try to hide things in the top of their sock, but that doesn't seem to be nearly as controversial as screening the anus. And we have to screen the anus, right? After all, not doing so would be ignoring known security holes, after terrorists have successfully exploited the hole, and after all the other terrorists have seen the hole exploited, right?

If you want, I can expand my examples to include the vagina. I think China posted a thread about a woman hiding nearly 100 things up her hoo-hoo (to use a medical term) a couple months ago.

[SnyderShrugged]

If that law was passed then I would just pull all TSA agents out of Texas. Let Texas pay the bill to hire and train their own security work force.

There is no way I would put my employees in a situation like that.

Im pretty sure thats exactly what TX wants

[JMS]

How come Israel has a strict questioning of passengers policy but they don't do these intruding searches? Why do we have to grope passengers? It's more than ridiculous and that's why I don't fly anymore. I drive. It takes longer but I don't have to be exposed to probing rays or fingers. What's wrong with people who so easily give up their Constitutional rights?

To suggest the TSA is more intrusive than EL AL is not very accurate. EL AL looks at your financial records, personally interviews all their passengers who must arrive hours before their flights and they definitely pat you down as well as going through your baggage, EL AL meticulously screen their passengers and sort through their background. And if the litmus test is giving Hubbs over there a cavity search or touching someone's lady lumps; believe me EL AL is up for that too. EL AL doesn't think terrorists are trying to blow up their planes, they know it and they are at the forefront of the airline industry in taking security measures.

I remember a few years back in Germany some terrorists who didn't think they could get passed EL AL's security checks decided to open up with machine guns in front of their check in desk... They had two shooters on a second floor vantage overlooking the floor and two more shooters down bellow in front of the ticketing desk. They opened up and killed a bunch of folks, but all four were killed within moments by EL AL's own security who were in plain cloths mingling with the pedestrians in the airport proximal to their ticketing desk. The original charge was that EL AL had advanced notice of the terrorist attack and that's the only way they could have responded so quickly. What came out in the investigation was EL AL's security is always on that level of alert. They always have shooters mingling near their ticketing agents unknown to pedestrians. It is not bravado to call EL AL the most secure airline in the world. They make the TSA look amateurish in comparison.

---------- Post added May-27th-2011 at 12:00 PM ----------

It's full of anal references because terrorists - and other violent criminals - have already hid weapons and explosives inside their anus.

No they haven't. What are you thinking? machine guns?, extra ammunition belts?, field rations".... perhaps get away vehicles?.. So far we've had the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. We have yet to face off against the vaunted anus bomber. At least on the international venue... Perhaps anus bombers is a state scourge?

And because this area is such a personal part of the human body, it's the natural part to focus on when I'm being told that security agents must examine any part of the body which has been used to further violent acts.

And just to put your paranoid mellon to rest, the TSA has not been accused of anal probing pedestrians getting on airplanes. You know how you get an anal prob? You tell the TSA agent you have a bomb and laugh in his face. They love that. That's how you get the full migillah. The worst you can expect as a noormal citizen and even that is rare is an external pat down followed by a very cramped flight and watery drinks. Just like always....

Now if you are a jerk or try to assert your imaginary rights; then all bets are off.

[Larry]

It's full of anal references because terrorists - and other violent criminals - have already hid weapons and explosives inside their anus. And because this area is such a personal part of the human body, it's the natural part to focus on when I'm being told that security agents must examine any part of the body which has been used to further violent acts.

I mean, I could spend time talking about thoroughly screening the people who try to hide things in the top of their sock, but that doesn't seem to be nearly as controversial as screening the anus. And we have to screen the anus, right? After all, not doing so would be ignoring known security holes, after terrorists have successfully exploited the hole, and after all the other terrorists have seen the hole exploited, right?

If you want, I can expand my examples to include the vagina. I think China posted a thread about a woman hiding nearly 100 things up her hoo-hoo (to use a medical term) a couple months ago.

Notice you still haven't answered the question. (Except, I suppose, by implication.)

Am I reading you correctly, that your opinion is that you would prefer for the US to have a rule that states that anything anybody wants to smuggle on board an aircraft is guaranteed to get through security, if it's hidden in your crotch, because security is prohibited from ever looking there?

(Frankly, I can understand such a position. I've been known to make similar statements, myself, on similar issues. Such as, after the OKC bombing, when folks wanted to know why the FBI wasn't infiltrating right-wing militia groups, whether they had probable cause or not, simply on the grounds that such groups might, in the future, commit terrorism. And I asserted that frankly, I'd prefer to live in a world where OKC was possible, than to live in a world where it's impossible. I'm not saying that, if my above statement correctly summarizes your position, then I disagree with you. I'm simply trying to make certain that I am, in fact, correctly understanding your position.)

[Hubbs]

No they haven't.

Yes they have.

Thanks for playing.

And just to put your paranoid mellon to rest, the TSA has not been accused of anal probing pedestrians getting on airplanes.

No, but Larry has kindly informed me that if a security hole exists, and a terrorist has successfully exploited that hole, and other terrorists have seen that hole exploited, then we must examine said hole.

In fact, I think I'm about to quote him on that very topic.

Notice you still haven't answered the question. (Except, I suppose, by implication.)

Yes, I've bothered to use the painfully tired tactic of not answering a question when said question is asked using the just-as-painfully-tired tactic of presenting only a set of answers that are worded as terribly as possible.

I mean, I could ask you which option you'd rather choose:

1) Allowing your underwear to be examined and passing an anal bomb search every time you fly.

2) Not doing so, thereby allowing terrorists to "pack" bombs onto airplanes.

...and then I could get indignant if you don't answer. But really, deep down inside, I know that the question is inherently stupid, as I've purposefully made it so. I mean, come on, TSA pat-downs don't even include searches of the anal cavity! The only way I could even realistically bring that up is if I'm told that the TSA should examine any security hole that a terrorist has ever used....

Am I reading you correctly, that your opinion is that you would prefer for the US to have a rule that states that anything anybody wants to smuggle on board an aircraft is guaranteed to get through security, if it's hidden in your crotch, because security is prohibited from ever looking there?

Am I reading you correctly, that your opinion is that we'd better make damn sure that nobody on an American flight has an ass bomb?

Gosh, that almost sounds like a gross exaggeration of your position.

(Frankly, I can understand such a position. I've been known to make similar statements, myself, on similar issues. Such as, after the OKC bombing, when folks wanted to know why the FBI wasn't infiltrating right-wing militia groups, whether they had probable cause or not, simply on the grounds that such groups might, in the future, commit terrorism. And I asserted that frankly, I'd prefer to live in a world where OKC was possible, than to live in a world where it's impossible. I'm not saying that, if my above statement correctly summarizes your position, then I disagree with you. I'm simply trying to make certain that I am, in fact, correctly understanding your position.)

My position is that if you're going to say that the TSA can reasonably use any previous terrorist tactic as justification for any examination that would prevent said tactic from being effective, then you shouldn't be surprised when I bring up anal cavity searches.