PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

[Dadiggla]

Can I assume that you never complain about the price of gas because you choose to drive a car instead of walk?
Or that the tolways are owned by a private company and will never be paid off because you choose to drive on them?
Or that you disagree with any government policy, tax, law, or otherwie because you choose to live in the USA?

No. When I have an issue with something and feel strong enough about it, I will go the appropriate source.
Whether they listen or not are 2 different things.
Like some of the things you just mentioned. BUT, you wont see me yelling at the gas station cashier or toll collector.
Or the LEO that gave me a no seat belt ticket. They're just doing what they are paid to. That was my WHOLE point.
I just refuse to accept the berating of a TSA employee that is just following a procedure.(Not using the instance that begun this thread but in general)
From what Ive seen they are curtious and professional people doing a job.
When enough people stop flying, the industry will want to know why...bet you the rules will change then.

[7075-T7]

Can I assume that you never complain about the price of gas because you choose to drive a car instead of walk?
Or that the tolways are owned by a private company and will never be paid off because you choose to drive on them?
Or that you disagree with any government policy, tax, law, or otherwie because you choose to live in the USA?

No. When I have an issue with something and feel strong enough about it, I will go the appropriate source.
Whether they listen or not are 2 different things.
Like some of the things you just mentioned. BUT, you wont see me yelling at the gas station cashier or toll collector.
Or the LEO that gave me a no seat belt ticket. They're just doing what they are paid to. That was my WHOLE point.
I just refuse to accept the berating of a TSA employee that is just following a procedure.(Not using the instance that begun this thread but in general)
From what Ive seen they are curtious and professional people doing a job.
When enough people stop flying, the industry will want to know why...bet you the rules will change then.

I didn't realize that your feelings on the matter were contingent on someone being rude to an employee who was not rude first. I've been on both sides of the coin, very nice and helpful TSA people and though it's unfortunate that they need mili-wave me but I have no beef with the employee. And, ive been on the side where they are antagonistic from step 1, they had to make me sit in the little Plexiglas booth for the enhanced scan, they questioned me and inspected the scar on my shin (caused by an RC aircraft prop running into it) because the metal detector beeped on it (no idea to this day why). Big difference.

The issue is the TSA and some overzealous employees groomed by the TSA. Did the OP's wife need to be strip searched, or could they have used other less humiliating methods to ascertain the information they needed?

[mamabearCali]

You know there is a really serious difference between a cashier charging me for gas, or a toll collector collecting tolls and an official from the gov't that with no probable cause is putting their hands on another person or forcing them to disrobe. Neither the toll collector nor the cashier is doing something illegal. The gov't official is. I don't care how many times people say "Don't like it don't fly" that does not change what is being done. Grandmothers, children, men and women are being touched and handled inappropriately and are being forced to disrobe either by back scatter radiation or in actuality. This is bad, and whether it is being done under color of law (TSA procedure-not congressional law) or not it is at minimum immoral and in any other time would be considered HIGHLY illegal.


A right is called a right because you cannot be forced to surrender it, otherwise it becomes a privilege that those in authority decide when and where you have the privilege of remaining secure in your person. Remember that if receiving a service that you have paid for is not a right then going to a the grocery store is not a "right" going to the mall is not a "right" going anywhere is not a "right." So be careful when you say that you give up your rights the moment you set foot in a airport because it is not a far step from that to "You gave up your right to be free of search and seizure the moment you stepped out your door." If those in authority can remove rights in one situation they can and will remove them in many others.

[mamabearCali]

honestly?...

from the perspective of the airline itself, or TSA as a whole: i would treat it as a privilege to fly on my airline, not a right. i would spend the money to go above and beyond current requirements - i would post xray machines at every single entrance and before you could ever step foot in my 'lobby' you would be separated from your baggage, scanned and verified as 100% clean. wanna throw a fit about standing there with your arms on your head so i can look through your clothes and make sure you aren't carrying a weapon, or drugs? fine! get the heck out of my facility and go take a bus. i would have at LEAST 25 sniffing dog/officer teams roaming the halls and terminals at all times, as well as two sniffing the plane; one before customers board and another after. any indication of anything remotely dangerous and you're headed to the land of strip/cavity searches in shiny bracelets. i would make sure that each and every person that passes through my airport(s) has been scanned, molested, re-scanned, ticked off and ejected if they even utter a single complaining word about security measures.

At every entrance, just below a picture of grandma in a wheelchair with 10 huge guys wearing rubber gloves behind her, there will be these simple words:

"don't like my rules? stay out of my airplane."

"how could one possibly endure such cruelty," you may ask?


simple... DON'T.

as others have said on here, folks - if you don't like the food, eat at another restaurant.

if none of the food out there suits you, cook it yourself.

everyone is up at arms and ready to boycott when a restaurant 'unconstitutionally' posts a 30.06 sign. what makes the airlines any different? what makes it different is your level of comfort. when that isn't impacted to a high enough degree, it's ok to do without when something violates your rights. however, when it creates an inconvenience that you consider to be too much, the system needs to change... not you.

It would be an interesting exercise in free market thinking to see how that would work. Tell you what abolish the TSA and let it be so. Well set up schufflerbot airline with the above restrictions, and mamabearCali airline with a hardened cockpit doors, armed pilots, a mild interview as you pick up your airline ticket, bomb sniffing dogs that patrol the bags and people, some amount of intelligence, a light security screening (pre TSA days style) and a disclaimer that in leiu of violating your constitutional rights we request of our passengers that you be a part of your personal saftey and to acknowledge that nothing in life is 100% safe. I wonder which would be a more pleasant flying experience and which one would have more customers. Hmmmmm would be interesting for sure.

[VMI77]

...and to those who feel that this is a 'security show' and not effective, is that honestly your opinion??

what would you rather see as a solution?

Just like mamabearCali I will believe it isn't theater when their actions match their words --when tests that say someone might be carrying explosives result in actions that any rational person would take if they were dealing with the possibility of an explosive device in front of them. What do the police do when they think someone left a bomb on the sidewalk in a backpack? Do they walk up and start rifling through the backpack or do they isolate the area and call in the bomb squad?

What would YOU do if you were in charge of airport security and you believed there was a real possibility of people walking into airports with bombs? Would you walk up to someone a machine told you might be carrying explosives and stick your hands down their pants? Would you set up a screening procedure that has people congregating in large tight groups? Would you leave the screeners completely exposed to a potential blast or would you install blast barriers at screening locations? Would you have just screeners armed with rubber gloves or snipers at checkpoints?

honestly?...

from the perspective of the airline itself, or TSA as a whole: i would treat it as a privilege to fly on my airline, not a right. i would spend the money to go above and beyond current requirements - i would post xray machines at every single entrance and before you could ever step foot in my 'lobby' you would be separated from your baggage, scanned and verified as 100% clean. wanna throw a fit about standing there with your arms on your head so i can look through your clothes and make sure you aren't carrying a weapon, or drugs? fine! get the heck out of my facility and go take a bus. i would have at LEAST 25 sniffing dog/officer teams roaming the halls and terminals at all times, as well as two sniffing the plane; one before customers board and another after. any indication of anything remotely dangerous and you're headed to the land of strip/cavity searches in shiny bracelets. i would make sure that each and every person that passes through my airport(s) has been scanned, molested, re-scanned, ticked off and ejected if they even utter a single complaining word about security measures.

At every entrance, just below a picture of grandma in a wheelchair with 10 huge guys wearing rubber gloves behind her, there will be these simple words:

"don't like my rules? stay out of my airplane."

.

Yes, and that is exactly my point --the TSA isn't taking the measures that would be taken if it was serious security instead of security theater.

[schufflerbot]

schufflerbot,

So you don't currently have a problem with the screening, because flying is a choice. Let me ask you, what if the next wave of terror attacks happen at shopping malls across the country? The public will scream that we need to be protected from this. So in come the nudie scanners and the strip searches at the malls - because remember, they are just trying to keep us all safe - its for our own good - going to the mall is a choice anyway.

Maybe public schools are next. Where does it stop? Then, once they are in place and the 4th amendment is so watered down as to be worthless and they figure out that the terrorist will simply move to implantable/insert-able devices anyway, what is next?

Maybe the government should be proactive. If we wait to catch someone with a device, its too late. Let's catch those carrying anti-government propaganda. Or you know it's always the religious nut jobs that attack other people anyway, lets catch those with a Koran or a Bible in their pocket.

Once you institute technology and policies that reveal anything a person might be carrying, the 4th amendment becomes a footnote. More than any other reason, this is why the TSA screenings matter.

we DID have metal detectors and screeners at my high school. they DID catch countless idiots trying to sneak all kinds of weapons in; knives, firearms, chains, etc. its amazing that people who walk through those things daily still attempt stuff like that.

...amazing, but true.

and again - if it bothers you so much, stay out of the airports!

there isn't a single thing in this life that you HAVE to do... EVERYTHING you do is the result of a choice. i wholeheartedly applaud your enthusiasm and if you really want to change these things, then write your representative or run for office!

until then, you're just going to have to put up with it...


or not. ;)

[schufflerbot]

...and to those who feel that this is a 'security show' and not effective, is that honestly your opinion??

what would you rather see as a solution?

Just like mamabearCali I will believe it isn't theater when their actions match their words --when tests that say someone might be carrying explosives result in actions that any rational person would take if they were dealing with the possibility of an explosive device in front of them. What do the police do when they think someone left a bomb on the sidewalk in a backpack? Do they walk up and start rifling through the backpack or do they isolate the area and call in the bomb squad?

What would YOU do if you were in charge of airport security and you believed there was a real possibility of people walking into airports with bombs? Would you walk up to someone a machine told you might be carrying explosives and stick your hands down their pants? Would you set up a screening procedure that has people congregating in large tight groups? Would you leave the screeners completely exposed to a potential blast or would you install blast barriers at screening locations? Would you have just screeners armed with rubber gloves or snipers at checkpoints?

honestly?...

from the perspective of the airline itself, or TSA as a whole: i would treat it as a privilege to fly on my airline, not a right. i would spend the money to go above and beyond current requirements - i would post xray machines at every single entrance and before you could ever step foot in my 'lobby' you would be separated from your baggage, scanned and verified as 100% clean. wanna throw a fit about standing there with your arms on your head so i can look through your clothes and make sure you aren't carrying a weapon, or drugs? fine! get the heck out of my facility and go take a bus. i would have at LEAST 25 sniffing dog/officer teams roaming the halls and terminals at all times, as well as two sniffing the plane; one before customers board and another after. any indication of anything remotely dangerous and you're headed to the land of strip/cavity searches in shiny bracelets. i would make sure that each and every person that passes through my airport(s) has been scanned, molested, re-scanned, ticked off and ejected if they even utter a single complaining word about security measures.

At every entrance, just below a picture of grandma in a wheelchair with 10 huge guys wearing rubber gloves behind her, there will be these simple words:

"don't like my rules? stay out of my airplane."

.

Yes, and that is exactly my point --the TSA isn't taking the measures that would be taken if it was serious security instead of security theater.

i have no doubt that theatrics are part of an umbrella tactic to dissuade would be terrorists. the illusion of safety is something the airlines blind it's passengers with, why wouldn't the TSA and airlines put up the illusion of security as well? the idea being, if you let one false alarm walk by without investigating... as silly as a search might be... those evil ninja terrorists hiding in the plants near terminal A are going to exploit the opportunity and end up with their own 747 missile.

[VMI77]

That said, imagine how you would feel if your wife and child were on a plane and because the TSA did not investigate a positive alarm, some skell hijacked the flight, or, blew it up.

Where's the logic in that statement? You think the TSA really believed she had explosives?

I don't know what the TSA people were thinking because I wasn't there, and I ain't one of 'em.

However, I have seen pre-teens used to deliver explosives before (Vietnam 70-71) - if it happened there, it COULD happen here.

I think you're forgetting a key difference: you were in a FORIEGN country, fighting a war against a FOREIGN population, on one side of a CIVIL WAR. To them you were a FOREIGN enemy. You're also ignoring huge cultural differences, but let's go ahead and ignore them: this is America --American parents aren't strapping bombs on American pre-teens, and just what enemy do you think American parents would be fighting by strapping bombs on their children to blow up airplanes? Seriously, if this is really a problem --if Americans are strapping bombs on their children in order to blow them up with a bunch of other people on a plane-- then the WOT is over, and we lost. But they aren't.

Furthermore, I didn't ask you what the TSA was thinking in that particular instance because it's irrelevant and I don't care. To use your comparison, if you really believe it is like back in Nam' and bombs on grandmas and pre-teens are a serious threat, would you approach someone a machine told you might be carrying a bomb and stick your hands down their pants? Is that what you did in the war if you thought some kid might be rigged to blow up? There are only two possibilities here: either the TSA is criminally negligent and stupid, or they don't really believe any of these people are carrying bombs. Critic of the TSA that I am, I still don't believe they're criminally negligent and stupid, and that tells me they don't really believe any of these people they're searching are carrying bombs, and hence, we have security theater.

[schufflerbot]

That said, imagine how you would feel if your wife and child were on a plane and because the TSA did not investigate a positive alarm, some skell hijacked the flight, or, blew it up.

Where's the logic in that statement? You think the TSA really believed she had explosives?

I don't know what the TSA people were thinking because I wasn't there, and I ain't one of 'em.

However, I have seen pre-teens used to deliver explosives before (Vietnam 70-71) - if it happened there, it COULD happen here.

I think you're forgetting a key difference: you were in a FORIEGN country, fighting a war against a FOREIGN population, on one side of a CIVIL WAR. To them you were a FOREIGN enemy. You're also ignoring huge cultural differences, but let's go ahead and ignore them: this is America --American parents aren't strapping bombs on American pre-teens, and just what enemy do you think American parents would be fighting by strapping bombs on their children to blow up airplanes? Seriously, if this is really a problem --if Americans are strapping bombs on their children in order to blow them up with a bunch of other people on a plane-- then the WOT is over, and we lost. But they aren't.

Furthermore, I didn't ask you what the TSA was thinking in that particular instance because it's irrelevant and I don't care. To use your comparison, if you really believe it is like back in Nam' and bombs on grandmas and pre-teens are a serious threat, would you approach someone a machine told you might be carrying a bomb and stick your hands down their pants? Is that what you did in the war if you thought some kid might be rigged to blow up? There are only two possibilities here: either the TSA is criminally negligent and stupid, or they don't really believe any of these people are carrying bombs. Critic of the TSA that I am, I still don't believe they're criminally negligent and stupid, and that tells me they don't really believe any of these people they're searching are carrying bombs, and hence, we have security theater.

Timothy McVeigh was an american

[7075-T7]

Timothy McVeigh was an american

Then should we have the TSA do searches on every vehicle before it's allowed into a city because they might be filled with ANFO? Not to mention full-cavity searching the driver.

[mamabearCali]

there isn't a single thing in this life that you HAVE to do... EVERYTHING you do is the result of a choice. i wholeheartedly applaud your enthusiasm and if you really want to change these things, then write your representative or run for office!

until then, you're just going to have to put up with it...


or not. ;)

Ummm-no. There are many things we have to do. We have to have shelter, food, clothing, to live and in this country we have to work for currency to obtain said needed items. Unless you are planning to be a hobo and live out in the woods someone catching squirrels and eating dandelions, and not have a wife or children, there are things we HAVE to do. Many people have jobs that require air-travel they simply MUST fly--no choice or their children starve/go on gov't assistance. We also have to be able to obtain said food, clothing, and shelter. If the gov't can mandate these things for airports, how long till they do so for other soft targets malls, conventions, grocery stores. Now I am a good gardener and I can grow some amazing tomatoes but I can't subsist on my garden so in order for my family to live I have to be able to obtain currency and exchange said currency for items needed for life.

As for your school. The school I went to had 0 metal detectors. I am sure people had knives, but in my four years of school there was exactly one incident where a knife came into play. One incident and it did not even result in an injury. So I see metal detectors at ordinary schools as wastes of $$ and ridiculous. Another way to train people to accept gov't intrusion into their lives.

That said I have written and called my representatives, my governor, my state representative and even the local board of commerce. Multiple times. So far I have gotten the polite shrug off. TX tried to stop the TSA from groping it's citizens--what did the TSA do. They threatened to shut down every airport in TX, the representatives caved (nice tyranny there). So it is not as cut and dry as you put it.

[mamabearCali]

Timothy McVeigh was an american

Timothy McVeigh also did not strap a bomb to HIS own child or grandma. He didn't even have the guts to be a suicide bomber. He planned to live after his bombing. Another big cultural difference. Also that happened once in what 25 years or so. So yes lets remove everyone's civil rights for a once in a 25 year occurrence.

[schufflerbot]

Timothy McVeigh was an american

Then should we have the TSA do searches on every vehicle before it's allowed into a city because they might be filled with ANFO? Not to mention full-cavity searching the driver.

my point is, you cannot assume that just because someone is an american they would never do harm to another american... as the quoted poster implies.

just as we have to lump all strangers into the 'potential threat until proven otherwise' category, TSA must assume that all flyers have bombs and guns until probed and proven otherwise.

[VMI77]

...and to those who feel that this is a 'security show' and not effective, is that honestly your opinion??

what would you rather see as a solution?

Just like mamabearCali I will believe it isn't theater when their actions match their words --when tests that say someone might be carrying explosives result in actions that any rational person would take if they were dealing with the possibility of an explosive device in front of them. What do the police do when they think someone left a bomb on the sidewalk in a backpack? Do they walk up and start rifling through the backpack or do they isolate the area and call in the bomb squad?

What would YOU do if you were in charge of airport security and you believed there was a real possibility of people walking into airports with bombs? Would you walk up to someone a machine told you might be carrying explosives and stick your hands down their pants? Would you set up a screening procedure that has people congregating in large tight groups? Would you leave the screeners completely exposed to a potential blast or would you install blast barriers at screening locations? Would you have just screeners armed with rubber gloves or snipers at checkpoints?

honestly?...

from the perspective of the airline itself, or TSA as a whole: i would treat it as a privilege to fly on my airline, not a right. i would spend the money to go above and beyond current requirements - i would post xray machines at every single entrance and before you could ever step foot in my 'lobby' you would be separated from your baggage, scanned and verified as 100% clean. wanna throw a fit about standing there with your arms on your head so i can look through your clothes and make sure you aren't carrying a weapon, or drugs? fine! get the heck out of my facility and go take a bus. i would have at LEAST 25 sniffing dog/officer teams roaming the halls and terminals at all times, as well as two sniffing the plane; one before customers board and another after. any indication of anything remotely dangerous and you're headed to the land of strip/cavity searches in shiny bracelets. i would make sure that each and every person that passes through my airport(s) has been scanned, molested, re-scanned, ticked off and ejected if they even utter a single complaining word about security measures.

At every entrance, just below a picture of grandma in a wheelchair with 10 huge guys wearing rubber gloves behind her, there will be these simple words:

"don't like my rules? stay out of my airplane."

.

Yes, and that is exactly my point --the TSA isn't taking the measures that would be taken if it was serious security instead of security theater.

i have no doubt that theatrics are part of an umbrella tactic to dissuade would be terrorists. the illusion of safety is something the airlines blind it's passengers with, why wouldn't the TSA and airlines put up the illusion of security as well? the idea being, if you let one false alarm walk by without investigating... as silly as a search might be... those evil ninja terrorists hiding in the plants near terminal A are going to exploit the opportunity.

The bottom line is this: if there is a real possibility that a machine alarm for explosives is indication of someone wearing a bomb, then it is criminally negligent to have a TSA agent walk up to them and stick their hands down their pants --it's suicide for the TSA agent, and it's murder for the general public. Maybe the TSA bosses really are that stupid, but I'm willing to give them more credit than that.

[schufflerbot]

there isn't a single thing in this life that you HAVE to do... EVERYTHING you do is the result of a choice. i wholeheartedly applaud your enthusiasm and if you really want to change these things, then write your representative or run for office!

until then, you're just going to have to put up with it...


or not. ;)

Ummm-no. There are many things we have to do. We have to have shelter, food, clothing, to live and in this country we have to work for currency to obtain said needed items. Unless you are planning to be a hobo and live out in the woods someone catching squirrels and eating dandelions, and not have a wife or children, there are things we HAVE to do. Many people have jobs that require air-travel they simply MUST fly--no choice or their children starve/go on gov't assistance. We also have to be able to obtain said food, clothing, and shelter. If the gov't can mandate these things for airports, how long till they do so for other soft targets malls, conventions, grocery stores. Now I am a good gardener and I can grow some amazing tomatoes but I can't subsist on my garden so in order for my family to live I have to be able to obtain currency and exchange said currency for items needed for life.

As for your school. The school I went to had 0 metal detectors. I am sure people had knives, but in my four years of school there was exactly one incident where a knife came into play. One incident and it did not even result in an injury. So I see metal detectors at ordinary schools as wastes of $$ and ridiculous. Another way to train people to accept gov't intrusion into their lives.

That said I have written and called my representatives, my governor, my state representative and even the local board of commerce. Multiple times. So far I have gotten the polite shrug off. TX tried to stop the TSA from groping it's citizens--what did the TSA do. They threatened to shut down every airport in TX, the representatives caved (nice tyranny there). So it is not as cut and dry as you put it.

i can walk out of this office right now and never return to my job, home, wife or child. it is my CHOICE to be here and do these things as it is anyones choice to live the way they want to live.

you dont HAVE to have a job, you dont HAVE to have a wife... your survival does not depend on any of those things.

and you think the metal detectors that caught countless weapons at my school was a waste of money?? sounds like your school was a great place to be - mine had several drive by shootings while i was there, several stabbings and a row of trees planted in the front to memorialize the students who died violent deaths while on school property.