Idea for TSA

[retread]

Do away with the scanners, install booths that seal completely and set off any explosives that are in them, solves problems both ways.
(Not my idea, my sister forwarded it to me.)

john

[Firefly]

Do away with the scanners, install booths that seal completely and set off any explosives that are in them, solves problems both ways.
(Not my idea, my sister forwarded it to me.)

john

I like it!

Then again I have no problem with the scanners or pat downs -- if I did I would just choose not to fly.

I'd rather have them search my body before a flight takes off -- than have to search FOR my body after the flight takes off!

[dave01]

Maybe that would stop stuff like this

http://www.medialunchbox.com/asx/1232.asx

[JJW SpyderRider]

I like it!

Then again I have no problem with the scanners or pat downs -- if I did I would just choose not to fly.

I'd rather have them search my body before a flight takes off -- than have to search FOR my body after the flight takes off!

I had over 85 flight segments last year and nearing 70 so far this year. The standard metal detectors are no problem. The new full body scanners are a pain in the *** If these scanners are so good why do they have to follow up with a patdown?

The real holdup is those people that try to get through carrying large containers with liquids and have to be told three times to take off their jackets and shoes.

[Trickie Dick]

To speed things up, they could have a small room that could hold, oh, maybe 15-20 at a time.

[dogg8988]

Why are people so willing to be like sheep following whatever the TSA says. I have a problem with a stranger filling my "nuts" Do you think it is ok for a stranger to invade a young girl between the ages of 9 and 16. I have a proplem with that. Let's just profile people. If you were born in the US, have excellent credit, payed taxes for many years, never been arrested why does the TSA treat you like a common crook.
I don't understand why a person that done everything right in their life be treated like a person that has everthing wrong?????

[Smylinacha]

I am flying tomorrow. If they pat me the wrong way, I'll probably end up in TSA Jail.

[AMTJIM]

After that incident with TSA, I have been avoiding the Junk file when checking my email. Not sure what I should do?
Also...maybe we should hire the "where's the beef?" fast food granny to lower tension and provide some comc relief.

[Firefly]

Why are people so willing to be like sheep following whatever the TSA says. I have a problem with a stranger filling my "nuts" Do you think it is ok for a stranger to invade a young girl between the ages of 9 and 16. I have a proplem with that. Let's just profile people. If you were born in the US, have excellent credit, payed taxes for many years, never been arrested why does the TSA treat you like a common crook.
I don't understand why a person that done everything right in their life be treated like a person that has everthing wrong?????

They don't pat you down like that unless you refuse the scanner. Ideally a biometric system for frequent fliers would be great... they would need to do extensive background checks like what you're alluding to.... although Tim McVeigh was born here....

Flying isn't a right -- if someone doesn't want to abide by their rules -- don't fly. Same goes for driving a car. When you buy a ticket you agree to their rules - simple as that. There is no constitutional right allowing you to fly.

Was only last year that the underwear bomber almost took down a plane in Detroit.

If these new rules were put in place soon after 9-11 -- people would be praising the government for them.

[Firefly]

Maybe that would stop stuff like this

http://www.medialunchbox.com/asx/1232.asx

[Firefly]

I had over 85 flight segments last year and nearing 70 so far this year. The standard metal detectors are no problem. The new full body scanners are a pain in the *** If these scanners are so good why do they have to follow up with a patdown?

The real holdup is those people that try to get through carrying large containers with liquids and have to be told three times to take off their jackets and shoes.

Frequent fliers should be allowed a quicker way to board for sure.

I believe if you do the new scanner you bypass the intensive pat-down.

People so against this should really just choose not to fly.

[rnet]

They don't pay you down like that unless you refuse the scanner. Ideally a biometric system for frequent fliers would be great... they would need to do extensive background checks like what you're alluding to.... although Tim McVeigh was born here....

Flying isn't a right -- if someone doesn't want to abide by their rules -- don't fly. Same goes for driving a car. When you buy a ticket you agree to their rules - simple as that. There is no constitutional right allowing you to fly.

Was only last year that the underwear bomber almost took down a plane in Detroit.

If these new rules were put in place soon after 9-11 -- people would be praising the government for them.

Tim McVeigh Blew up a truck, does this mean the next time everyone get in a truck they have to get scanned. What they are doing is way over the top, profiling the answer here, just like in any criminal investigation.

[Firefly]

Tim McVeigh Blew up a truck, does this mean the next time everyone get in a truck they have to get scanned. What they are doing is way over the top, profiling the answer here, just like in any criminal investigation.

You missed the point completely. Tim McVeigh was a typical white, Christian American born here in the USA -- who would have passed the profiling that you're talking about using. Had he wanted, he would have been allowed on a plane. These scanners will help detect whether such a person has explosives on them.

You don't think they're already doing profiling? They are for sure.

What's next--- people complaining it's an infringement to have their carry-on luggage scanned or searched?

If scanning me makes the flight safer for all - I have no problems with it at all -- if I suddenly decide this isn't something I'm comfortable with-- I can make the choice not to fly.

I just don't see this as an infringement on our rights when it's a choice for us to fly. When I got my cycle license I agreed to abide by the rules of each state (for the most part---).

[wyliec]

You missed the point completely. Tim McVeigh was a typical white, Christian American born here in the USA -- who would have passed the profiling that you're talking about using. Had he wanted, he would have been allowed on a plane. These scanners will help detect whether such a person has explosives on them.

You don't think they're already doing profiling? They are for sure.

What's next--- people complaining it's an infringement to have their carry-on luggage scanned or searched?

If scanning me makes the flight safer for all - I have no problems with it at all -- if I suddenly decide this isn't something I'm comfortable with-- I can make the choice not to fly.

I just don't see this as an infringement on our rights when it's a choice for us to fly. When I got my cycle license I agreed to abide by the rules of each state (for the most part---).

Here's the sequence:

Some are selected for full body scan.

If you decline, they do a pat down.

If you decline, you are subject to an $11,000.

If you don't agree with it, don't fly.

[MarkLawson]

Where to start...

The "right to fly" issue is backward. We are given our rights by "our Creator". The purpose of the US Constitution is to guarantee those rights, not to grant them. The men who wrote it were very concerned about a federal government that would violate those rights. That same constitution also states that if it does not expressly grant the federal government an authority to do anything, that authority cannot be assumed by the federal government.

That brings in many questions concerning what is happening in the interest of airport security.

When looking at the Constitution, the question then becomes, under what constitutional authority does the TSA operate to do these searches. It likely would be in direct violation of the 4th Amendment, which protects us from unreasonable and unauthorized search and seizure. To gain that authority, sufficient evidence that someone has committed a crime, is planning a crime, or is in the act of committing a crime, is presented to judge, and also sworn to by proper authorities. If valid, that judge would sign a court order granting the search & seizure. Since that is done on a case by case basis, it cannot be executed on the scale the TSA is doing it.

"... I mean nobody likes their 4th Amendment rights violated going through a security line; but, the truth of the matter is we're going to have to do it." – Morris McGowen, TSA Asst Administrator

I’m not saying do nothing. I want every flight to be safe, just like you. I just want the government to act only within the confine of the Constitution. If they cannot do what it needs to do under the Constitution, change the Constitution. Just keep it legal.

A government that ignores the limitations of the Constitution & routinely violates the rights of those who give their consent to be governed, is far more dangerous than any terrorist.

[wyliec]

Where to start...

The "right to fly" issue is backward. We are given our rights by "our Creator". The purpose of the US Constitution is to guarantee those rights, not to grant them. The men who wrote it were very concerned about a federal government that would violate those rights. That same constitution also states that if it does not expressly grant the federal government an authority to do anything, that authority cannot be assumed by the federal government.

That brings in many questions concerning what is happening in the interest of airport security.

When looking at the Constitution, the question then becomes, under what constitutional authority does the TSA operate to do these searches. It likely would be in direct violation of the 4th Amendment, which protects us from unreasonable and unauthorized search and seizure. To gain that authority, sufficient evidence that someone has committed a crime, is planning a crime, or is in the act of committing a crime, is presented to judge, and also sworn to by proper authorities. If valid, that judge would sign a court order granting the search & seizure. Since that is done on a case by case basis, it cannot be executed on the scale the TSA is doing it.

"... I mean nobody likes their 4th Amendment rights violated going through a security line; but, the truth of the matter is we're going to have to do it." – Morris McGowen, TSA Asst Administrator

I’m not saying do nothing. I want every flight to be safe, just like you. I just want the government to act only within the confine of the Constitution. If they cannot do what it needs to do under the Constitution, change the Constitution. Just keep it legal.

A government that ignores the limitations of the Constitution & routinely violates the rights of those who give their consent to be governed, is far more dangerous than any terrorist.

If you go into any Federal building you are scanned. Do you have a problem with that? I see no difference between the previous scan method and the new all body scan that is not performed on everybody. I'm all for profiling and full body scans if it is going to make me safe.

If you do not want to be safe or feel safe; go for it.

I also don't believe the framers of the Constitution had air travel and terroists in mind. And, how long would it take to change any part of the Constitution; hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, a long, long time.

[Firefly]

Where to start...

The "right to fly" issue is backward. We are given our rights by "our Creator". The purpose of the US Constitution is to guarantee those rights, not to grant them. The men who wrote it were very concerned about a federal government that would violate those rights. That same constitution also states that if it does not expressly grant the federal government an authority to do anything, that authority cannot be assumed by the federal government.

That brings in many questions concerning what is happening in the interest of airport security.

When looking at the Constitution, the question then becomes, under what constitutional authority does the TSA operate to do these searches. It likely would be in direct violation of the 4th Amendment, which protects us from unreasonable and unauthorized search and seizure. To gain that authority, sufficient evidence that someone has committed a crime, is planning a crime, or is in the act of committing a crime, is presented to judge, and also sworn to by proper authorities. If valid, that judge would sign a court order granting the search & seizure. Since that is done on a case by case basis, it cannot be executed on the scale the TSA is doing it.

"... I mean nobody likes their 4th Amendment rights violated going through a security line; but, the truth of the matter is we're going to have to do it." – Morris McGowen, TSA Asst Administrator

I’m not saying do nothing. I want every flight to be safe, just like you. I just want the government to act only within the confine of the Constitution. If they cannot do what it needs to do under the Constitution, change the Constitution. Just keep it legal.

A government that ignores the limitations of the Constitution & routinely violates the rights of those who give their consent to be governed, is far more dangerous than any terrorist.

Interesting points, but when you purchase the ticket you have voluntarily agreed to being searched and thus no 4th Amendment violation. Ditto whenever you enter a courthouse or federal building.

The Constitution (thinking 10th Amendment but would have to check) does give the specific authority to to the Government to protect us from enemies -- both foreign and domestic.

[boborgera]

I think there should be two Separate flights,
One ''only'' for those who don't want go though the new screening.
[If you can find a crew willing to work that flight]
And one ''only'' for those who are willing to go though the new screening.
And see how that works out in a year or two!

[MarkLawson]

If you go into any Federal building you are scanned. Do you have a problem with that? I see no difference between the previous scan method and the new all body scan that is not performed on everybody. I'm all for profiling and full body scans if it is going to make me safe.

If you do not want to be safe or feel safe; go for it.

I also don't believe the framers of the Constitution had air travel and terroists in mind. And, how long would it take to change any part of the Constitution; hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, a long, long time.

So, if changing the Constitution takes a long time, are you suggesting we should just disregard it? These new security procedures are instituted by non-elected officials within the Homeland Security Administration (Janet Napalitano). Our elected Representatives and Senators have had no say in this, although I am in hopes they will take this on.

We would do well to consider the words of Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[Eraser]

I think there should be two Separate flights,
One ''only'' for those who don't want go though the new screening.
[If you can find a crew willing to work that flight]
And one ''only'' for those who are willing to go though the new screening.
And see how that works out in a year or two!

There you have it....freedom of choice! Methinks the first of the two flights would be empty.

[LittleJohn]

oops, I was about to post my opinion, and saw this starin me in the face......

"Off Topic Board Zero Tolerance- NO Political Post. Keep it clean and no personal attacks. Any profanity, sexual content or personal attacks or threats will be removed and the user may lose their privilege to use this site."


Borders on political, Ill pass.

[Dudley]

Bottom line: If you do not want to comply, don't fly. You can walk, drive, bus, train, cab, etc. Safety is not for you, it's for anyone else wanting to fly safely.

[wyliec]

So, if changing the Constitution takes a long time, are you suggesting we should just disregard it? These new security procedures are instituted by non-elected officials within the Homeland Security Administration (Janet Napalitano). Our elected Representatives and Senators have had no say in this, although I am in hopes they will take this on.

We would do well to consider the words of Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I served in the military to preserve what we have. So, please don't lecture me. If you don't want to fly, don't fly. I agree with what Dudley said.

If you feel it's worth changing the Constitution, get in touch with your Congressman/woman. I don't feel it is worth it in this case. I also could care less what Ben had to say since I don't believe he ever saw bodies blown apart.

[Dudley]

I would like to see our airports have the security standards of Israel. AND there are no pending law suits in their courts about how strict they are. For them, if you don't want to be screened, don't fly.

[Smylinacha]

Well hartford ct didnt have those scanners. Went through just fine. If they have them in tampa going home i will refuse them because i dont trust it health wise. Ill take the pat down after i gulp down a few drinks at the bar first.