Jackson Jambalaya

Don't touch my junk man!

Why am I not surprised? It's gotten out of control with all the "security" checks. Where do we draw the line at personal humiliation and deprivation of the presumption of individual rights? The sad part is that all the major incidents in the US were by some batshit crazy indidividual(s) that no government security apparatus was gong to prevent in any event.

Why am I not surprised? It's gotten out of control with all the "security" checks. Where do we draw the line at personal humiliation and deprivation of the presumption of individual rights? The sad part is that all the major incidents in the US were by some batshit crazy indidividual(s) that no government security apparatus was gong to prevent in any event.

Profile the traveler. That is the most assured way of detecting a terrorist.

"Excuse me...where are you going today? What are you doing there? Who is traveling with you? What are you carrying with you? Etc."

If they are going to New York to see Wrigley Field, we may have a problem.

Here is what I do not understand...

Civil liberties are trampled and laws are suspended vis-a-vis invasion of privacy with regard to searches under these circumstances.

Given this, why is profiling so ugly.

Just so I am clear, which question could you possibly pose to a traveler that would elicit the response, "Oh, I have the components of an IED in my carry-on bag."? Profiling would not work in detecting any of the pieces/parts of an explosive device.

I, for one, would rather a little inconvenience and encroachment on my modesty if it keeps the flying public safe.

But, that's just me.

If they are going to New York to see Wrigley Field, we may have a problem.

I often go to NYC to visit Wrigley Field. I must admit, however, I have yet to find it.

I blame George Bush.

BJSmith -- name an attempted or successful terrorist attack that the CancerScanner/GenitalGrope methods would have stopped.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Franklin

BJSmith, As to your question, the point isn't to elicit a specified response of guilt, it's to elicit a response to which you analyze.

google "Pini Shif" and find the answers you seek to be "clear"

Michael Chertoff's company is making a ton of money off these scanners. We're spending billions. More government waste.

@Mark Geoffriau - Perhaps the bigger question/statement would be that since TSA rolled out in 2002, there have been no successful attempts at commandeering a US plane. I hear your argument/question daily and yet, when all is said and done, those instances lately where attempts have been made have originated in countries other than our TSA protected USA.

since TSA rolled out in 2002, there have been no successful attempts at commandeering a US plane.

Association is not causation.

8:36 -- Given that kind of success, then (since clearly you attribute the lack of US-based attacks to the TSA), what is the reason for suddenly introducing the CancerScanner/GenitalGrope method?

As you yourself mention, all of the recent attempts have originated in foreign countries -- clearly terrorists have already adapted.

You are the one claiming that these newly-introduced methods are worth it because they make us safer.

Thinking that roping the genitals of American citizens will make us safer is akin to believing that banning switchblades would reduce gang-related violence.

If you want to compare airline security, then let's talk about El Al, since they were doing an excellent job before 2002, all without irradiating or groping the genitals of their patrons.

Obviously, I meant the 4th paragraph to read "groping" and not "roping", though I can't say I'd be surprised if the TSA tried that too.

You hit the proverbial nail on the head with your statement, “clearly terrorists have already adapted”. Is it not prudent on the United States of America part to evolve faster than terrorists? Is it not imperative that TSA be given the means to outwit a potential terrorist? FYI, the media’s portrayal that these are “newly introduced methods” are, in fact, not new at all. The pat downs have always been in place (since JAN does not have the full-body scanner yet); the procedures are merely being enhanced further to allow screeners a better opportunity to identify artfully concealed objects and/or explosives. Think Richard Reid. Further, and more specifically as to content, think Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

I think you are frenzied if you equate someone doing their job as groping. Care to share with the class?

"Is it not prudent on the United States of America part to evolve faster than terrorists?"

So now that terrorists are sticking plastic explosives up their rectums, should TSA be conducting full cavity searches?

"Further, and more specifically as to content, think Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab."

You're referring to the infamous Underwear Bomber, who was allowed to board a flight in Amsterdam despite not having a valid passport. What does feeling up a grandmother in Albuquerque have to do with allowing someone with suspected al-Qaeda connections and no valid passport to board a plane in Amsterdam?

"I think you are frenzied if you equate someone doing their job as groping."

The full-contact patdowns being conducted are considered sexual assault with 2 exceptions:

(1) TSA security
(2) Arrest by law enforcement

Law enforcement officers are not allowed to do full patdowns until they are arresting someone. Why are we allowing the TSA to treat us like criminals?

preach on mark. there is no reason why we all have to lose our dignity while flying just because our govt. doesnt have the balls to start profiling. Who doesnt think twice about flying with middle easterns on their flights? when was the last time a white/black/hispanic/american indian/asian male or female tried to hijack/bomb an airplane?

Let’s review: Remember Richard Reid, the shoe bomber? Can you connect the dots as to why NOW travellers are required to remove their shoes? I repeat, TSA’s screening practices must evolve with intel. Have you been screened yet via the new procedures? If you have, then you surely know that the pat downs are not full contact. I may be wrong, but I do believe law enforcement has a right to search your person sans an arrest. Oh, and by the way, those latex gloves do fit up to the elbow.

If someone claims they lost their "dignity" while flying, I suggest you check out the "Lost and Found" department. I sincerely doubt TSA had anything to do with that. Doesn't matter how many balls you have, profiling is not going to solve the riddle of who's got the weapon. Besides, who says they are not already profiling?

OK, I'll say that they're not profiling (remember, Intro to Logic students - you can't disprove a negative). Now it's up to you to prove that they are, or shut up.

One example will suffice, obviously.

"Have you been screened yet via the new procedures? If you have, then you surely know that the pat downs are not full contact. I may be wrong, but I do believe law enforcement has a right to search your person sans an arrest."

LEO's do have a right to do what is called a "stop and frisk" -- which is a brief frisking of the outer garments with the purpose of discovering weapons, after the officer has reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. Even this brief frisking requires that the officer can list the concrete reasons for his suspicion (eg, it can't simply be, "He looked like he was up to something").

But the invasive frisking being done at airports is much closer to a custody search, which LEO's can only when they have probable cause to arrest a suspect -- involving the removal of garments, palm-down on genitals, etc.

"Oh, and by the way, those latex gloves do fit up to the elbow."

Great. The TSA workers are protected, then. Unfortunately, there are many reports that the gloves are not being replaced between searches.

"Besides, who says they are not already profiling?"

Well, until this very week they still hadn't figured out how to compare passenger lists against terrorist watch-lists, so the smart money is against it.

http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/12/01/all-us-bound-planes-will-supply-passenger-information-to-tsa/

@Mark Geoffriau - At least you do have a sense of humor somewhere in there. Of course the TSA screeners replace their gloves between searches! Now let’s talk about that being a waste of government spending.

We will have to agree to disagree on the pat downs being “invasive.” I believe it is a necessary thing–at least until one of two things happen: (1) someone comes up with a better, fool-proof way to determine if a passenger is carrying potential destructive devices; or (2) we are no longer concerned with the possibility of a terrorist attack in the skies. I’ll not hold my breath for either to happen, therefore, I am fine with the searches.

For what it’s worth, it is not TSA who has to do the “comparing” of passenger lists against terrorist watch lists. TSA has no access to passenger lists – i.e., passenger—airline.

OK, I'll say that they're not profiling (remember, Intro to Logic students - you can't disprove a negative). Now it's up to you to prove that they are, or shut up.

One example will suffice, obviously.
___________________
A bit touchy, today, are we?

Guy walks in, appears nervous, can't string five words together to make a coherent answer to a specific question posed by a TSA screener. What do you think TSA does?

This is called profiling.

I've answered you question, but I have no intention to shut up as long as there are folks out there like you who are sorely misinformed.

Yawn.

So 12:54 PM, under your example they are profiling against a drunk white male at an airport? The horror.

"Of course the TSA screeners replace their gloves between searches!"

Of they are supposed to. Just like they are supposed to not separate children from parents, or like they are supposed to check potential hires for a history of sexual crimes. Unfortunately, what happens in reality doesn't always match what's supposed to happen.

"I believe it is a necessary thing–at least until one of two things happen: (1) someone comes up with a better, fool-proof way to determine if a passenger is carrying potential destructive devices; or (2) we are no longer concerned with the possibility of a terrorist attack in the skies. I’ll not hold my breath for either to happen, therefore, I am fine with the searches."

You will never, ever ensure complete safety. All you are doing is trading liberty for the appearance of safety.

"For what it’s worth, it is not TSA who has to do the “comparing” of passenger lists against terrorist watch lists. TSA has no access to passenger lists – i.e., passenger—airline."

It absolutely is the TSA that is (as of this week, finally) receiving passenger lists with the information necessary to compare against terrorist watchlists.

@1:44pm: Not drunk. Not drugged. Busted!