I think, one of the more disturbing aspects of this issue is the talk in some circles of expanding these machines to trains, buses, mass transit, and "anywhere people gather". It's worth a little thought that it's freedom that made America great not safety, wealth, power, or government. I think the founding fathers would be revolted at how far we have allowed government to go, and at how much of an elitist controlled police state we have become.
It seams to me that we are spending a lot of money on technology that is extremely intrusive and unnecessary. The images that the whole body scanner produces are nearly pornographic, and the "pat downs" thats a whole different story. The 4th Amendment of the Constitution reads
"The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation describing the place to be
searched, and the person or things to be seized"
I want, like most, to be safe when I fly but there is a point when enough is enough. There was nothing wrong with the metal detectors. Granted metal detectors cant pick up explosives, but there is an easier and cheaper way to detect explosives. Some have been in use for years. I remember flying through Denver and having to walk through a bomb sniffing machine, but that still is expensive and can be intimidating. The us military as well as law enforcement have been using dogs for years to detect explosives with great success. What would be the problem with supplying the TSA with dogs trained to detect explosives. Labs and beagles are very good at this task and would be less intimidating than say a german shepard. If the dogs aleart to someone than you have your probable cause to preform more intrucive searches. It would eliminate time and cost and probably end a lot of the current issues. But thats just a thought.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Haven't they done this to protect us vs. offend us? Yes you may think its invading your privacy but at the same time wouldn't you rather be safe? I'd say if you don't want the full body scan or pat down then maybe you should find another from of transportation! I personally would rather fly vs. drive and that is just something you are going to have to do to have the privilege of flying.
Can you justify the "form of transportation" argument if this expands to trains? mass transit? the bus? schools? public buildings?
Do you not remember the explosions and deaths that occurred on the train system in Spain and buses in Great Britain? Terrorism purposely selects "soft targets" and our country is not immune to that threat.
Perhaps we should then give up all of our rights to privacy? even be required to send our mail in zip lock baggies? Be strip searched when we leave the house? Have the government listen to phone calls (oops I forgot they already do that)? Maybe the government should torture people at random to be sure they aren't terrorists? exactly where does it stop? I guess I also think is the government were that worried about Muslim terrorists they would do a little more to control the border, without doing so it seems their main interest is constructing a police state. In a free society there is no guarantee of absolute safety, and no where in the constitution is there a guarantee of absolute safety, there is however a short passage about privacy called the 4th amendment which I expect the government to abide by, and no where does it mention strip searches!
Unfortunately, if someone wants to attack a bus or train they don't need to be on-board to do so. Expanding these "security measures" to trains, buses and so on won't stop anything. It reminds me of what happened after the Oklahoma City bombing. Afterwards you could no longer park on the street in front of federal buildings and court houses. Whats to stop someone from simply detonating a bomb while driving by. My point is even with all the added security if someone truly want to perpetrate an attack, they will find a way. The security may make some people feel better but are they truly safer. There comes a point when enough is enough
I'm willing to bet that the folks on the planes involved in the 9/11 attacks would have been happy to submit to a body scan or pat down in hindsight. When I fly, I want to be safe and arrive at my destination, not used as a weapon. If takes a body scan or a pat down, fine with me. If you don't like it take another form of transportation. Nobody likes it, but it's the world we live in.
How would have these scanners or pat downs stopped 911?
Nether scanners nor pat downs would have prevented 9-11. And if you believe it would have, you must have been asleep through that year. The hijackers didn't "smuggle" anything on board - their "weapons" were allowable items at the time. The pilots were not armed, and airline staff were trained to "do whatever the hijackers want" to prevent loss of life or injury to passengers.
Now we have locked cockpit doors, armed pilots, armed air marshals in the cabin, and no sharp instruments allowed.... What does anyone hope to find with an x-ray machine that cannot detect low density explosive material, and an invasive and perverted pat down procedure that is even more useless?
The infamous underwear bomber was not caught by the scanner, and the last two explosives to fly our skies were sent as cargo...
This whole system is a blatant violation of our constitutional rights as citizens, and those who accept it are paving the way for a dictatorship.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
These machines, nor does the TSA guarantee safety. The ONLY people who are inconvenienced by this are general day to day fliers.. The people who want to use air travel for their dirty work will ALWAYS find a way around this stuff..
I haven't flown commercially since 911 because I didn't want some greaseball rummaging through my clothes and stealing my fingernail clippers and toothpaste. That I thought was too intrusive but what the TSA is doing today is illegal. If anyone touched or photographed an unwilling or unknowing person in the manner that the TSA is doing they could be found guilty of a felony and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives.
The argument that you give up your rights when you buy a plane ticket is wrong. Fact is you can't give up your rights. Others can infringe on them but a right is not like a privilege it cannot be provided nor taken away. The only Constitutional way a government can infringe on someone's rights is through due process in a court of law.
The Israeli airline El Al is well known for having the most effective security of any airline and has never lost a plane to a terrorist. It's not that they haven't tried or wouldn't like to bomb the Israelis it's just that they have never been able to get through their security. El Al doesn't grope or irradiate their passengers like the TSA. No their security is based on profiling passengers, something that the TSA refuses to do.
The worst thing about the groping and the porno scanners is that they are ineffective. They were brought about as an answer to the so called underware bomber who had the explosive PETN sewed into his shorts. It's quite possible that that same attack would pass through current security devices undetected. It also raises the question of what will be TSA's reaction to terrorists smuggling explosives onto planes in their body cavities?
It's unfortunate that there are so many people willing submit to whatever atrocity our government wishes to subject them to. It was my hope that the "hassle factor" as it was called right after 911 would diminish passenger numbers to the point that airline lobbyists would demand less intrusive security. It didn't happen then and it still hasn't happened. My family has talked about a vacation to Hawaii for the last couple of years but I would not tolerate the TSA's treatment and I could not stand by idle as my children were publicly molested.
I don't see a problem with either measure. If you don't want to be searched don't fly.
I see a problem with my rights being violated and have not flown since 911, I also encourage others who are offended to use alternate means of transportation.
Was there a problem with the normal metal detectors? Were they junk and these new machines the only way to keep us safe? How did we stay so safe and have so few incedents when we didn't have these new scanners. Either the old detectors are junk, the new scanners are useless, or the threat is embellished.
And the answer is D, None of the Above. Metal detectors detect just that -- metal. Explosives do not contain metal. The threat is real and the technology of terrorism and its detection is constantly evolving.
I vote embellished, Personally I don't believe Al Qaeda will ever mount an attack similar to 911 using airplanes again it will come in a form we don't expect. Being an open society makes us vulnerable but the option of a police state is even less acceptable. I don't want to live in an America where I hear "your papers please"!
Those who object should not just protest, but also refuse to fly. How much personal dignity is a trip to Disney Land worth?