|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Jun 26, 2011 23:29:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jun 26, 2011 23:37:31 GMT -5
That must of been embarrassing as fuck. Poor woman.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadoom2 on Jun 26, 2011 23:42:43 GMT -5
Is there a better source for this than msn?
This sounds exactly like the myths that libertarians spam over reddit every few days, which usually turn out to be complete lies or heavily misrepresented.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Jun 26, 2011 23:46:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 26, 2011 23:50:30 GMT -5
I know they have their reasons and stuff, but there's a point where it gets ridiculous. Asking someone to remove what is effectively their underwear is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 27, 2011 0:01:08 GMT -5
Yeesh, and here I was thinking the airport security in my own country is excessive.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 27, 2011 1:05:11 GMT -5
I've said it before, I'll say it again, airport TSA search procedures serve NO practical purpose. They exist purely to be seen, as something to point to to reassure the travelling public.
Americans should protest these ridiculous excesses in the strongest possible terms. Not only is it against your constitution as unreasonable search and seisure, not only does it not achieve anything, but it is actively dangerous to the travellers' health!
|
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Jun 27, 2011 3:22:40 GMT -5
They should just have passengers get totally naked, submit to a cavity check, then get on the plane naked, and be done with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 27, 2011 6:48:54 GMT -5
They should just have passengers get totally naked, submit to a cavity check, then get on the plane naked, and be done with it. You had me at hello. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 27, 2011 7:42:34 GMT -5
On the face of it I understand why this woman was searched--as a disguise, someone intent on harm can't do much better than a very old very sick wheelchair-bound woman (or man, or crippled person, or pregnant woman). Years ago when my aunt was pregnant with her last child she was searched (but not strip-searched) at an airport to make sure she was actually pregnant. But really, this is just flat out excessive and this poor woman's privacy was completely violated. Realistically speaking a person is far more likely to actually BE disabled, pregnant, or in a wheelchair than they are to be strapped to a bomb. If you want to make sure the woman is genuinely disabled and not a faker carrying eighteen pounds of C-4, you don't have to make her strip off for a cavity search to do it. Indeed. Further... if one REALLY wanted to get a quantity of C4 onto a comercial aircraft, there are significantly erasier ways to do it than disguising ones'self as a 95 year old wheelchairbound leukaemia patient. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 27, 2011 7:48:06 GMT -5
Sari Koshetz, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration ...“TSA cannot exempt any group from screening because we know from intelligence that there are terrorists out there that would then exploit that vulnerability,” Koshetz told the paper. Fuck off. TSA spokespeople don't have intelligence clearance. You're talking out of your arse. Further... if one REALLY wanted to get a quantity of C4 onto a comercial aircraft, there are significantly erasier ways to do it than disguising ones'self as a 95 year old wheelchairbound leukaemia patient. If there's someone who has several pounds of C4, wants to kill people, doesn't mind if they die in the process and is at an airport, the last thing you need to worry about is them getting on a plane. I think they're going about this the wrong way. When did infiltrating terrorist groups stop being the way you stop them killing you? When did it become acceptable for a person to start hating Americans and obtain the means to kill them in the US or fly there, without virtually everyone in Langley knowing every move they make? In my view, if they're at that stage, it's a criminal failure on the part of some three-letter agency. Forget all this bullshit with 'airport security' (and the GWOT, actually). Spend the money on intelligence guys and bribe money. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 27, 2011 8:37:18 GMT -5
Sari Koshetz, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration ...“TSA cannot exempt any group from screening because we know from intelligence that there are terrorists out there that would then exploit that vulnerability,” Koshetz told the paper. Fuck off. TSA spokespeople don't have intelligence clearance. You're talking out of your arse. However, the person who told him what to say probably does. Indeed. As has been discussed elsewhere (and as recent events in Russia have shown) if one's intent is to kill a bunch of civilians in spectacular fashion, an airport departure hall on the outside of the security barrier is an excellent place to do so. Outside my area, but there are apparently significant difficulties in gathering adequate, useful intel against these groups, and infiltration is even more difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Jun 28, 2011 13:11:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 28, 2011 13:16:52 GMT -5
Here's my question: why smuggle stuff onto the plane? Either you take control of the plane and run it into places á la 9/11, which doesn't require explosives, or you explode the plane, which only kills the people on the plane. Blowing up an airport would kill more people, and would be effectively easier.
So why not search people before they even reach the terminal? Why all this searching rigamarole to get on?
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Jun 28, 2011 19:23:31 GMT -5
The entire thing is absurd, really. Anybody who is bent on getting shit on the plane they shouldn't is gonna manage it even with the lengths they're going with airport security. Back in the days of walking through a metal detector there wasn't a huge issue with people hijacking planes. It's bred by hysteria over 9/11 and achieves nothing of real value.
|
|
