PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

[mamabearCali]

this thread has turned into me playing the role of devil's advocate which i have stated several times.

don't make it personal, i'm just indulging the masses while the work day drudges on.

Usually I am fine with people playing devils advocate. I think it is a nice mental exercise, and I have done it myself. In this case however it is not a theoretical person that this happened to. Someone on this boards wife was forced under threat of arrest to take off the majority of her clothes. Had she done anything wrong or illegal to deserve such treatment--no. Was she under arrest for anything--no. You have consistently said that you found the treatment of her acceptable. Perhaps you don't have a significant other, but this is quite disturbing to most people. If you don't want people to " make this personal" you might want to be a little less callous when dealing with people's real situations.

[schufflerbot]

this thread has turned into me playing the role of devil's advocate which i have stated several times.

don't make it personal, i'm just indulging the masses while the work day drudges on.

Usually I am fine with people playing devils advocate. I think it is a nice mental exercise, and I have done it myself. In this case however it is not a theoretical person that this happened to. Someone on this boards wife was forced under threat of arrest to take off the majority of her clothes. Had she done anything wrong or illegal to deserve such treatment--no. Was she under arrest for anything--no. You have consistently said that you found the treatment of her acceptable. Perhaps you don't have a significant other, but this is quite disturbing to most people. If you don't want people to " make this personal" you might want to be a little less callous when dealing with people's real situations.

point taken and my apologies if i offended anyone.

to clarify, however, this discussion was never about the significant other of the OP from my perspective, it was about the TSA staff and their policies.

[unhappycamper]

When did "I was following orders" become an acceptable excuse in our society?

[SewTexas]

you still haven't stated a case in which the TSA has prevented an event with their policies, and as I said before I'm talking about an event, NOT, a mistake of some LEO carrying his gun, some teenager or businessman carrying his leatherman, etc. As far as I know the 'events' that have been prevented have been trial runs and have been caught after the screening process. IF, and only IF, their policies did prevent something from happening I MIGHT be willing to go along without complaint, but I don't see anything being prevented by their process...I will go along for now, but I still reserve the right to complain....my teenage daughter flies to FL at least once a year, a drive of that far, yeh, no....thus far she hasn't been selected for screening, thanks to loads of prayer everytime she flies.

[VMI77]

lol what?

what that statement meant: if a terrorist has a specific plane they want to destroy - i'd bet they, when given a choice between a crowd at the airport and the plane itself in the air, would choose to take out their original target.

OK, one final try: when this hypothetical terrorist gets scanned, sets off an alarm, and a TSA agent approaches to pat her down, or escort her somewhere else for a pat down, the choice of taking out the plane in the air no longer exists. At that point, the choice is detonate or go to prison.

don't make assumptions about what i do or do not believe, this thread has turned into me playing the role of devil's advocate which i have stated several times.

I have no idea what you believe, beyond the remarks you've made here, so any assumptions I'm making about what you believe are inferences from your remarks. Take your remark above for instance: you either don't understand the choices presented, you believe there is a choice that doesn't exist (addressed in my comment above), or you believe that confronted with the choice of detonate now or go to prison, the putative suicide bomber is going to choose to go to prison, or detonate after TSA has moved her to a less lethal location.

don't make it personal, i'm just indulging the masses while the work day drudges on.

You say not to make it personal, but you begin your replies with things like "lol." Maybe it's a generational thing, but in my experience, when someone isn't trying to be funny, and in the context of a serious discussion, "laughter" comes off as ridicule, and ridicule is rather personal.

[chasfm11]

To try to take this thread in a different direction, here is my beef

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053 ... e-say.html

It is insulting to ask a grown woman to disrobe with no PC and only some kind of an "alarm" that isn't explained as pretext. The part that sets me off my trolley is that the same screening process allows situations like the one in the link to occur. Yes, I know that not everything can be detected. But that knife that was missed was a lot more lethal than anything that OP's wife had.

According to the article, the errant passenger had detectable bad behavior, even with police. It was that bad behavior that alerted the flight crew to him and got him questioned. My guess is that his behavior would have been detectable at screening, too.

TSA continues to focus on the fringes (the Afro hair search yesterday) and seems to ignore obvious things like a knife. Tell me again why we are doing this?

[7075-T7]

To try to take this thread in a different direction, here is my beef

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053 ... e-say.html

It is insulting to ask a grown woman to disrobe with no PC and only some kind of an "alarm" that isn't explained as pretext. The part that sets me off my trolley is that the same screening process allows situations like the one in the link to occur. Yes, I know that not everything can be detected. But that knife that was missed was a lot more lethal than anything that OP's wife had.

According to the article, the errant passenger had detectable bad behavior, even with police. It was that bad behavior that alerted the flight crew to him and got him questioned. My guess is that his behavior would have been detectable at screening, too.

TSA continues to focus on the fringes (the Afro hair search yesterday) and seems to ignore obvious things like a knife. Tell me again why we are doing this?

It's much easier to exert power over the obliging (the OP's wife) than it is on the belligerent (the guy in your story).

[schufflerbot]

i am going to respectfully remove myself from this discussion because it has become apparent that i've upset quite a few people. that was NEVER my intent, i was not trying to ridicule anyone and the 'lol' acronyms are there because i was genuinely enjoying the conversation - as i thought others were.

it has come to my attention that this is not the case and again, i apologize if i have offended anyone. i will not be joining threads like this in the future.

[Dadiggla]

I enjoyed reading and adding to the conversation. I saw your devil's advocate approach to be lively and could tell you were not making light of OP's wife's situation. Here we are talking about fundamental rights and when someone uses the right to express an opinion they are belittled, ganged up on and made to feel like they've offended the world. Some opinions are not popular but seeing another's perspective through debate is good for progress...sometimes the masses forget that.

[VMI77]

i am going to respectfully remove myself from this discussion because it has become apparent that i've upset quite a few people. that was NEVER my intent, i was not trying to ridicule anyone and the 'lol' acronyms are there because i was genuinely enjoying the conversation - as i thought others were.

it has come to my attention that this is not the case and again, i apologize if i have offended anyone. i will not be joining threads like this in the future.

Just so you know, I'm not offended by any of your postings --obviously I disagree with you, but nothing you said upset or offended me. My comment about "lol" was just to point out that given the lack of visual and vocal cues in internet "conversations," many expressions that might be clear in an actual conversation are open to interpretation. After you expressed a concern about things becoming personal I was pointing out that your remarks could also be interpreted as "personal" --precipitating a personal response.

[VoiceofReason]

Ive been witness to this in my MANY flights to and fro the last few years. And one thing I do notice is that "we"(general public) are taking our frustration out on the wrong people. TSA screeners really are "Just doing their job". They dont make policies or rules.

Take the job, you take everthing that comes eith it.

So, what do you think yelling at and insulting the TSA agent will accomplish???

Do you believe he will then disregard policy and no longer search people that set off an alarm??

Do you believe he will call his supervisor over and insist they change policy so he will not get yelled at?

To believe that because someone took that job, you have the right to be rude to him/her shows unmitigated arrogance.

The right way to handle this is by not getting your blood pressure up, be polite then writing letters to the appropriate people.

I ask again, exactly what do you think yelling at, and insulting the TSA agent will accomplish???

[mamabearCali]

You are right it is not fair to yell and scream at a TSA agent. Let me say something that my father would have said "a fare is something you pay to ride a bus--life is not fair."

If a person is the willing agent of a organization quite literally assaulting thousands of people daily, then they are going to get the righteous wrath of the populace who do not appreciate their assistance to the gov't in this outrage. Does this accomplish anything on an organizational level--probably not. However, if a person just put their hands on my child's private parts without the child's or my consent (consent under duress is not consent) and I have no legal recourse to charge them with a criminal activity, no means to seek to be made whole from this assault, then people will do what they legally can do to let the person who just violated their child/wife/grandma know just how despicable they found that person's actions, that is if the person assaulted has some amount of control.

The TSA would like to say to us "Don't like our policies (which include the fondling of genitalia and illegal strip searches)--don't fly" I would like to say to those allowing the TSA head to assault people through their hands "Don't like the people's justifiable reaction to your assaults--get a new job." It is just a reasonable as what they ask us to do.

[7075-T7]

I enjoyed reading and adding to the conversation. I saw your devil's advocate approach to be lively and could tell you were not making light of OP's wife's situation. Here we are talking about fundamental rights and when someone uses the right to express an opinion they are belittled, ganged up on and made to feel like they've offended the world. Some opinions are not popular but seeing another's perspective through debate is good for progress...sometimes the masses forget that.

Well, if the "masses" are belittling, ganging up on, and making someone feel like they've offended the world. Then don't post and/or quit the forum, therefore they wouldn't be subject to such persecution. After all, they chose to post in the first place.

[tacticool]

I ask again, exactly what do you think yelling at, and insulting the TSA agent will accomplish???

It could accomplish more than pornoscan machines and enhanced groping. It can't possibly accomplish less.

[Mach1]

Pardon me if my points have been made by someone else.. youse guys are windy and I didn't read everything..

1. We, as citizens of the United States, have the RIGHT to move amoung the various states at will.

2. TSA actions (strip search) are not the result of laws, such as having to have a DL, wear a seat belt, etc TSA actions result from an unelected official(s) deciding such and such should be done

3. TSA is security theater for the many reasons mentioned herein.

4. The argument: "you give up your right to move freely amoung the states when you enter an airport" has no logical end... yesterday the airport, today the football stadium, tomorrow the mall, next week your house..after all, you gave up the right to privacy in your house when you accepted city water.. if you don't like it, don't get your water from the city...

5. Don't want to be windy, so I quit