There have been many complaints and bad stories about TSA and airport pat downs, but this one may just be the worst.
Michelle Dunaj is dying of leukemia and is flying to Hawaii. She made every measure possible ahead of time in order for her to have a smooth journey, including security check for her medicine, a wheelchair, and all necessary documents.
But nothing went as planned when she arrived at the airport. A machine couldn't get a reading on her saline bags, so a TSA agent forced one open, contaminating the fluid she needs to survive.
She says agents also made her lift up her shirt and pull back the bandages holding feeding tubes in place. Dunaj needs those tubes because of organ failure. With other passengers staring, Dunaj says she asked for privacy and was turned down.
"They just said that it was fine; the location we were at was fine," she said. "And when somebody wants to take a trip, especially what I call an 'end-of-life trip' because you want to see your family and friends, then it becomes more important than just taking a trip," she said.
I think there was gross abuse of authority committed somewhere, and even direct violation of procedures. Add to that the fact of the nature of the trip. I can't imagine how hellish it must have been for her.
Searching sick and injured people is probably standard practice after all the people taking advantage of it by smuggling drugs inside casts etc. But they really should of let her have it done in a private room, I think that's a legal requirement. And not sure what to make of the drop bags, I mean you have to check this stuff otherwise you just smuggle everything inside medicinal looking bags but there should be ways to do it without causing contamination.
Tbh, ariport security can do only so much to check. I mean if you think about it, there are soooooooo many ways to get around it to get a time bomb on a plane.
That being said, not giving privacy in checking is a terrible, terrible thing. When I had to get major upper body braces and fly on planes, they let me do so in a private room (this is Honolulu and Hilo Airports in Hawaii)
Maybe it's like those German airports taking away Stradivariuses from renown musicians because "they might illegally sell it", even though they have proper lending papers at the airport from the foundations. Wayyy too sensitive.
So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
I don't see what relevance her dying has to do with anything. Either this is how you have to treat people for security or it isn't. As far as I can tell, it isn't how you have to treat people. Privacy seems like a luxury that should be afforded, as does extreme courtesy if there is a problem with your equipment that forces you to act more invasively than normal.
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
So this is something I've always wondered. In the US, there is a constant state of low fear that terrorists or even just some crazy dude will come and blow up a plane or something, which is supposed to be the justification for the TSA, Patriot Act, and all that. Obviously, much of this is fabricated by politicians as a means of maintaining the status quo and their incumbency by using fear as a voter motivation, and allowing them to beef up security measures to pretend like they are doing something important. I recognize that in general, Americans probably are more afraid of potential attacks than the actual threat would deserve.
However, I do feel like because it is the US, and because of its image and stature in the world, it [i]is[i] more likely to attacked by some fanatical individual or group than, say, the Czech Republic. I think it is not unreasonable or arrogant to put forth the claim that America probably faces a larger risk of potential attack than other Western countries. However, I'm just not sure how much of a legitimate threat there is, and whether the risk of an attack is great enough to warrant all the breaches of privacy increased security bring along. If the US were really in as much danger as politicians would like us to believe, then hell, we need even more surveillance of airports and passengers coming into the states. But obviously that isn't the case, so with a lesser degree of threat, there is a lesser degree of security needed. The question in my mind is how much is needed.
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
So this is something I've always wondered. In the US, there is a constant state of low fear that terrorists or even just some crazy dude will come and blow up a plane or something, which is supposed to be the justification for the TSA, Patriot Act, and all that. Obviously, much of this is fabricated by politicians as a means of maintaining the status quo and their incumbency by using fear as a voter motivation, and allowing them to beef up security measures to pretend like they are doing something important. I recognize that in general, Americans probably are more afraid of potential attacks than the actual threat would deserve.
However, I do feel like because it is the US, and because of its image and stature in the world, it [i]is[i] more likely to attacked by some fanatical individual or group than, say, the Czech Republic. I think it is not unreasonable or arrogant to put forth the claim that America probably faces a larger risk of potential attack than other Western countries. However, I'm just not sure how much of a legitimate threat there is, and whether the risk of an attack is great enough to warrant all the breaches of privacy increased security bring along. If the US were really in as much danger as politicians would like us to believe, then hell, we need even more surveillance of airports and passengers coming into the states. But obviously that isn't the case, so with a lesser degree of threat, there is a lesser degree of security needed. The question in my mind is how much is needed.
The problem is that the whole argument is fucking silly and pointless and hinges on the belief that any of these measures actually do anything to prevent terrorism. Fact is, terrorism has worked. No amount of airport security or lack of rights or border patrol can stop somebody from blowing up a bunch of people in a mall. People are terrified.
There is a rising trend of "wheelchair protest" in airports these days. If you ask for a wheelchair, they will send you to the front of the line. They aren't even allowed to ask if you are handicapped or not.
This is how big government works. Bureaucratic stupidity stifles the entire system until common sense is dead, and then the people devote their energy to working or abusing the stupid system and rules in place instead of adhering to the basic unspoken social compacts which have guided society around the globe for centuries, the type of social compacts which say things like "don't harass and embarrass a dying woman in an airport." Standard "we are just doing our job" cowardice from all parties involved. Can't wait for these people to run health care.
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
So this is something I've always wondered. In the US, there is a constant state of low fear that terrorists or even just some crazy dude will come and blow up a plane or something, which is supposed to be the justification for the TSA, Patriot Act, and all that. Obviously, much of this is fabricated by politicians as a means of maintaining the status quo and their incumbency by using fear as a voter motivation, and allowing them to beef up security measures to pretend like they are doing something important. I recognize that in general, Americans probably are more afraid of potential attacks than the actual threat would deserve.
However, I do feel like because it is the US, and because of its image and stature in the world, it [i]is[i] more likely to attacked by some fanatical individual or group than, say, the Czech Republic. I think it is not unreasonable or arrogant to put forth the claim that America probably faces a larger risk of potential attack than other Western countries. However, I'm just not sure how much of a legitimate threat there is, and whether the risk of an attack is great enough to warrant all the breaches of privacy increased security bring along. If the US were really in as much danger as politicians would like us to believe, then hell, we need even more surveillance of airports and passengers coming into the states. But obviously that isn't the case, so with a lesser degree of threat, there is a lesser degree of security needed. The question in my mind is how much is needed.
The problem is that the whole argument is fucking silly and pointless and hinges on the belief that any of these measures actually do anything to prevent terrorism. Fact is, terrorism has worked. No amount of airport security or lack of rights or border patrol can stop somebody from blowing up a bunch of people in a mall. People are terrified.
If i recall correctly, the chance that you die in a terrorist attack has been lower then that you die of being struck by lightning for basically ever.
It is understandable for them to check on her, especially since it may not be all too uncommon for a drug trafficker or the likes to try to evoke empathy in order to get by security. However, they need to treat these cases with extreeeeeeeme care and sensitivity. They should've taken her to somewhere more private, tried to contact her doctor for confirmation or do anything to make it as non pervasive as possible.
Right, just read the thread. Some people share this thought. Check her, just be sensible! Its an unfortunate thing, but I think security has to be conscious while simultaneously impersonal.
EDIT: Also, I don't think terrorism was the main concern. Smuggled drugs, unlike terrorism, isn't an uncommon thing.
On October 10 2012 17:50 [Agony]x90 wrote: It is understandable for them to check on her, especially since it may not be all too uncommon for a drug trafficker or the likes to try to evoke empathy in order to get by security. However, they need to treat these cases with extreeeeeeeme care and sensitivity. They should've taken her to somewhere more private, tried to contact her doctor for confirmation or do anything to make it as non pervasive as possible.
Right, just read the thread. Some people share this thought. Check her, just be sensible! Its an unfortunate thing, but I think security has to be conscious while simultaneously impersonal.
EDIT: Also, I don't think terrorism was the main concern. Smuggled drugs, unlike terrorism, isn't an uncommon thing.
Yeah better pull out the tubes feeding her, let's make her really miserable, after all she might carry a couple grams of cocaine!
I don't see what this has to do with the TSA freaking out about terrorism. They just handled it wrong and should have been more discrete about it if she asked them to. The whole breaking her saline bags and crap who knows what's true since they both have a different story. I can imagine either of them lying...
This woman would always have been checked out a little bit in any airport on earth for drug reasons, long before the terrorism bullshit. This story is basically about a woman being "embarrassed". "I thought that was a little rude," she said. Hard to quantify how much i should care about this.
This is sad. And what's worse is that the security will be getting the flak on this. There must have been a communication breakdown somewhere, the officers not being informed that there were arrangements made ahead in time. They were merely doing their job on this one.
On October 10 2012 18:09 DannyJ wrote: I don't see what this has to do with the TSA freaking out about terrorism. They just handled it wrong and should have been more discrete about it if she asked them to. The whole breaking her saline bags and crap who knows what's true since they both have a different story. I can imagine either of them lying...
This woman would always have been checked out a little bit in any airport on earth for drug reasons, long before the terrorism bullshit. This story is basically about a woman being "embarrassed". "I thought that was a little rude," she said. Hard to quantify how much i should care about this.
Pretty much this.
If you read the article “I asked them if they thought that was an appropriate location, and they told me that everything was fine".
That quote doesn't say anything about requesting a private room. She simply asked if it was appropriate to do it there and they said yes, and he was embarrassed but she didn't speak up for herself. Maybe if she refused being patted down until they went to a private room then she would of got her way, but if you gonna sit there and comply then complain later how you were embarrassed well it's your fault for letting that situation happen.
“I didn’t want to start getting upset and swearing and causing more of a scene or issue,”
She was completely passive about the whole incident.
On October 10 2012 18:18 neggro wrote: This is sad. And what's worse is that the security will be getting the flak on this. There must have been a communication breakdown somewhere, the officers not being informed that there were arrangements made ahead in time. They were merely doing their job on this one.
just doing there job? Is denying private search part of their job too? The TSA deserves all the flak they will get in this case, communication breakdown or not.
this kind of made me sick to my stomach... that "this location is fine" type of thing threw me off... that shit is fucking disgusting, there gets to a point where it goes from just a security check to something thats blatantly humiliating and just unnecessary..
nonetheless i hope she enjoys her visit and doesnt let morons like them to keep her from having a good time
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
Don't blame the US citizens, we have no choice. Flying is not a right, it's a privilege, so in order to fly we have to agree to put up with these assholes. There's no writing our Congressman about the issue, because we have no constitutional right to a search-free airplane ride. And if they will take the constitutional rights that we explicitly have, we're not getting any rights that we don't.
So before you shit on us for what happened to this poor woman, that no one in the US will actually say "Yeah, sounds right" about, learn a bit about our laws and society. I'm so tired of the Europeans coming on here and shitting on us like they're holier than thou, but actually don't know a damn thing. Millions of Americans have voiced their disdain against the TSA, but it's like voicing your disdain for the police at this point. We have no constitutional right against police either.
Again, what happened to this woman is horrible, but don't blame me or anyone else for this. This is the TSA's fault, not the hapless Americans who can't seem to make the government care about us anymore.
On October 10 2012 18:18 neggro wrote: This is sad. And what's worse is that the security will be getting the flak on this. There must have been a communication breakdown somewhere, the officers not being informed that there were arrangements made ahead in time. They were merely doing their job on this one.
just doing there job? Is denying private search part of their job too? The TSA deserves all the flak they will get in this case, communication breakdown or not.
Exactly. If you cannot separate a possible terrorist/drug dealer from a dying cancer patient on her a last effort to enjoy a moment in life with family you should not just get a warning, you should get a lawsuit.
On October 10 2012 18:09 DannyJ wrote: I don't see what this has to do with the TSA freaking out about terrorism. They just handled it wrong and should have been more discrete about it if she asked them to. The whole breaking her saline bags and crap who knows what's true since they both have a different story. I can imagine either of them lying...
This woman would always have been checked out a little bit in any airport on earth for drug reasons, long before the terrorism bullshit. This story is basically about a woman being "embarrassed". "I thought that was a little rude," she said. Hard to quantify how much i should care about this.
Pretty much this.
If you read the article “I asked them if they thought that was an appropriate location, and they told me that everything was fine".
That quote doesn't say anything about requesting a private room. She simply asked if it was appropriate to do it there and they said yes, and he was embarrassed but she didn't speak up for herself. Maybe if she refused being patted down until they went to a private room then she would of got her way, but if you gonna sit there and comply then complain later how you were embarrassed well it's your fault for letting that situation happen.
“I didn’t want to start getting upset and swearing and causing more of a scene or issue,”
She was completely passive about the whole incident.
I think this is a matter of perspective. I was always taught that people in positions like doctors, cops and even TSA enforcers are authority figures. When dealing with authority figures the default position is compliance for all but the most extreme cases of abuse (like if they are trying to kill you) and lesser issues are dealt with through the chain of command or legal system. This is what is happening here.
The other perspective, which I think many people are coming around to is that these people are as accountable to us as they are to their bosses right there in the moment. I dont know whether this is a healthy entitlement or not considering, as far as I know, the system works as well as any system can be expected to (as far as authority is concerned not function).
On October 10 2012 18:18 neggro wrote: This is sad. And what's worse is that the security will be getting the flak on this. There must have been a communication breakdown somewhere, the officers not being informed that there were arrangements made ahead in time. They were merely doing their job on this one.
just doing there job? Is denying private search part of their job too? The TSA deserves all the flak they will get in this case, communication breakdown or not.
Exactly. If you cannot separate a possible terrorist/drug dealer from a dying cancer patient on her a last effort to enjoy a moment in life with family you should not just get a warning, you should get a lawsuit.
Huh? The issue wasn't that they couldn't separate the two it's the fact that they didnt respect her privacy enough. It's not like they surrounded this woman with guns drawn or something...
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
Don't blame the US citizens, we have no choice. Flying is not a right, it's a privilege, so in order to fly we have to agree to put up with these assholes. There's no writing our Congressman about the issue, because we have no constitutional right to a search-free airplane ride. And if they will take the constitutional rights that we explicitly have, we're not getting any rights that we don't.
So before you shit on us for what happened to this poor woman, that no one in the US will actually say "Yeah, sounds right" about, learn a bit about our laws and society. I'm so tired of the Europeans coming on here and shitting on us like they're holier than thou, but actually don't know a damn thing. Millions of Americans have voiced their disdain against the TSA, but it's like voicing your disdain for the police at this point. We have no constitutional right against police either.
Again, what happened to this woman is horrible, but don't blame me or anyone else for this. This is the TSA's fault, not the hapless Americans who can't seem to make the government care about us anymore.
I think his point was, that in a (true) democracy, the government works for the people. Not simply are you supposed to elect your leaders, you are supposed to be their boss. If you are saying that the constitution is taking away your power, then you're already not a democracy. GL with that. Essentially what you're writing is that you're powerless, as a people, against your own government. How would YOU classify this? Democracy? Hardly. ..How did you end up here?
And, I'm simply going by your post. I'm not going by any other reference. It is just what I read into your reply.
On October 10 2012 18:18 neggro wrote: This is sad. And what's worse is that the security will be getting the flak on this. There must have been a communication breakdown somewhere, the officers not being informed that there were arrangements made ahead in time. They were merely doing their job on this one.
just doing there job? Is denying private search part of their job too? The TSA deserves all the flak they will get in this case, communication breakdown or not.
There must be a reason why they did not affirm the request at first. There are security reasons to this you know. You can't just say you want to be inspected privately and the TSA will just agree to it without validation. This is the process I'm talking about. Don't react emotionally. Use your reason and not your emotions to get a wider view of the situation.
I've been checked by the TSA "randomly" several times, I guess because of the fact that I was once caught with pressured gas in my backpack left over from a science project, and because my ethnicity is very hard to determine other than the fact that I'm not entirely white.
Honestly, I felt totally fine about it. The system has caught people with knives, guns, etc. If I have to be "humiliated" by a system that ensures that flying is safe through paranoid checks, then I'm fine with it.
Edit: For the curious, I'm 1/2 Chinese, 1/2 Russian, but look like neither.
I know this may sound strange but... shouldn't her family and friends come to visit her instead of the other way around? I don't want to play devil's advocate here but it is rather unlikely for terminal sick patients to undertake such huge travels. To this end, I believe the security could have suspected her to be a fraud who was carrying lots of drugs or the like. You cannot blame them for doing their job, though they should have given her a private space.
Again, it's not their fault that there are so many terrorists and smugglers in the world - but of course it's not her fault either.
TSA is a joke and serves as nothing more than a highly "visible" means with which to keep the populace in relative fear of traveling and authority. Someone needs to bite the political bullet and reform this joke of a security agency, as there is so much inefficiency and, in line with this story amongst others, a lack of basic human decency.
This sounds really humiliating for her. I just read the full article in the OP and she handled this very well, even after they shoved her out after she passed the pat-down. I applaud her for not making a scene and contacting the appropriate authorities after. I can see why the TSA would have such stringent rules on people that appear sick and are carrying medicine/chemicals, but doing it in public, without care is insulting and highly disrespectful.
That will happen when you have the GED hopefuls of the world in charge of security. I've always believed that the people running security in these places should be trained to look for specific things that might be dangerous...you know, like detectives? But smart people cost more money...
On October 11 2012 02:17 Butterednuts wrote: This sounds really humiliating for her. I just read the full article in the OP and she handled this very well, even after they shoved her out after she passed the pat-down. I applaud her for not making a scene and contacting the appropriate authorities after. I can see why the TSA would have such stringent rules on people that appear sick and are carrying medicine/chemicals, but doing it in public, without care is insulting and highly disrespectful.
I wouldn't make a scene in an airport, those places are pretty good at legal infringing on your constitutional rights and getting away with it.
This isn't a TSA problem, this is a problem with a specific individual.
Yeah that's true. Let's ignore the 400 cases and the fact that they got their iPad stolen with a sample size of 10 airports, and the fact that one guy who's guilty of theft said it was a systemic problem wherein the TSA agents don't report their colleague's theft. It's just a specific individual though, right?
as shoddy as this is... its exactly what makes a dying/sick person the perfect candidate as a smuggler... so much bad press and they wont dare to touch one again
On October 10 2012 17:40 Emporio wrote: However, I do feel like because it is the US, and because of its image and stature in the world, it [i]is[i] more likely to attacked by some fanatical individual or group than, say, the Czech Republic. I think it is not unreasonable or arrogant to put forth the claim that America probably faces a larger risk of potential attack than other Western countries.
Typical US arrogance at its best. US is currently not and never was even in top 10 countries by terrorist attacks.
Amount of people that died from terrorist attacks in US is more than 100 times less than number of civilians killed by US military.
Your second sentance is meaningless. So you believe the Czech Republic is in more danger of terrorist attacks than the US? Do you have any logical reasoning behind that?
Dying, leukemia etc. doesn't matter when it comes to security as being soft on these people will be taken advantage of by real evil guys once found out. The only problem here is that they checked her in public and not at a private room or somthing. The article says she contacted airline ahead of time, but I have to wonder how much airPORT knew about this trip.
On October 11 2012 02:33 Assault_1 wrote: Once you start getting lax on security and adding exceptions you open it up for another 9/11.
Do you actually believe that? TSA screeners haven't stopped a single terrorist attack since it was created, and tests from law enforcement and the media repeatedly prove that they allow dangerous materials onto planes anyway. The only things the TSA does well are stealing shit and embarrassing people.
It's probably safe to assume that the TSA catches few, if any, crimes. I have a combination lock on the gate from my front yard to my back yard. I'm well aware that it only takes a few seconds and a good pair of bolt cutters to bypass that "security" measure. However... it takes a few seconds and a good pair of bolt cutters. A determined thief can still break in, but it's not as easy to do so. The TSA works off of the same principle. It might be possible to get a bomb onto a plane but it's a lot more difficult to do so. It's not a guaranteed preventative measure, but it drives up the resources, time, and planning that it takes. There's some synergy there with law enforcement - the longer it takes to develop an attack, the greater the likelihood something goes wrong and you get caught. Chances are, that's happened before but it doesn't make a big media splash.
Next, let's put ourselves in the shoes of some hapless TSA agent. In comes a patient in a wheelchair, complete with saline bags and bandaging with something obviously under it. Yes, it's far more likely that this is a sick person going to visit their dying relatives than a drug smuggler or terrorist... so you've got a choice, and they both suck. You either do your security check and risk looking like a jerk, or you wave them through and risk missing something important. There's definitely a caveat here: you should still treat people with dignity and respect. If you've got to do a thorough pat-down, take it somewhere private.
I don't particularly enjoy going through TSA security. I don't know if its existence is justified or not; if in the last decade it has prevented even one single incident that could kill 300 people on a plane, does that balance out the inconvenience and occasional abuse of authority? Is this just another slice of freedom that we've lost, another step towards some dystopian authoritarian bureaucracy? I haven't got any answers for those questions, but I think the issues with TSA are a lot more complex than "the lines suck and getting patted down is undignified and I've never seen anyone get caught with a bomb."
On October 11 2012 02:33 Assault_1 wrote: Once you start getting lax on security and adding exceptions you open it up for another 9/11.
Do you actually believe that? TSA screeners haven't stopped a single terrorist attack since it was created, and tests from law enforcement and the media repeatedly prove that they allow dangerous materials onto planes anyway. The only things the TSA does well are stealing shit and embarrassing people.
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
Hey next time you come over to the US why don't you start a campaign against the TSA.
I don't like the TSA but what am i gonna do drop everything im doing right now and begin a fund to campaign against the TSA? Write letters to my Senators?
and "Dont keep bitching on the internet?" Tell me what was the last thing you have done there keyboard warrior against your Gov't because you can't tell me the Czech Republic is with out flaws.
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
Hey next time you come over to the US why don't you start a campaign against the TSA.
Yeah other people should lobby for your good because you won't do it yourselves. How about that.
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
Hey next time you come over to the US why don't you start a campaign against the TSA.
Yeah other people should lobby for your good because you won't do it yourselves. How about that.
Ha oh your so rich got a response for everyone dont you?
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
Hey next time you come over to the US why don't you start a campaign against the TSA.
Yeah other people should lobby for your good because you won't do it yourselves. How about that.
Ha oh your so rich got a response for everyone dont you?
What thought were you even trying to share with us through that poorly spelled and poorly structured sentence of yours?
Here for you: "When a form of authority infringes upon a person's freedom, it is all the other people who are guilty, because it is their silence and their implied consent that allows the authority to commit this infraction"
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
Hey next time you come over to the US why don't you start a campaign against the TSA.
Yeah other people should lobby for your good because you won't do it yourselves. How about that.
Ha oh your so rich got a response for everyone dont you?
What thought were you even trying to share with us through that poorly spelled and poorly structured sentence of yours?
What i am trying to convey thought my poor sentence structures and lack of English grammar and vocabulary skills is to ask what can be done?
I could sit here and write to my congressman/senator i could go out and lobby against the TSA start a cause but i can't, i just don't have the time to worry about something like the TSA. Yes i despise them and wish it was like back in 1999, but its more like an annoyance i am willing ti put up. I imagine the average person is to busy as well. Someone said before that flying is a privilege he/she is right, flying isn't the only means of transportation (albeit the only practical one for Hawaii obviously). High profile cases like these happens every year we read about it and and every few months a thread just like this one is opened with probably the exact same arguments being made.
I personally am not scared of a terrorist i have honestly accepted that if someone wants bomb on the plane its going to happen one way or another. Its just a matter of is it my plane or is it not.
I know Europeans/canadians will always criticize the Americans but until it becomes a problem to peoples everyday lives (like somehow extending past planes/transportation) i can't see Americans doing anything about it, thats just how Americais.
Here for you: "When a form of authority infringes upon a person's freedom, it is all the other people who are guilty, because it is their silence and their implied consent that allows the authority to commit this infraction"
So should i write a letter of apology to this lady?
America isn't perfect no far from, its a country of humans and humans are inherently flawed the TSA just humans who make mistakes and this was one of them. I don't hold a grudge against the agents, when i go to the airport most of them are very friendly and crack a joke. Yes there are always the one who really believe they are protecting America but it how it is.
As a American i understand the majority of this country is Christian centered and President Candidates must show some sort of Religious fervor for any possibility of candidacy. The political system if flawed, the taxation is flawed this country is full of holes with very little being done to cover them up. I don't say "what can be done" but i accept it, i may hate on this country for its ridiculous laws and the ones in charge seem as smart as a doorbell. But i do love my country to its death i couldn't imagine living in any other country in the world.
Even if you said look at (No offense intended here) Sweden's great standard of living or Germany has got a great political system/taxation or even look at how great Canada's snow is! (Im joking of course). I wouldn't want to be any other nationality.
Maybe all Americans are inherently insane or we are all just stupid, i don't know and i won't stop loving this country until i die.
TSA is an absolute joke... Anyone who thinks they're stopping anything is absurdly mistaken.
I'll leave it to George Carlin to really end my opinion on it. Anyway this is a really far out example, but general TSA regulations are rather ridiculous. The fact she was checked so severely is insanity though.
On October 11 2012 03:18 Djzapz wrote: Feel free to do nothing =)
Now i feel like i wasted 30 mins on a person who isn't even giving me the courtesy to at least give a serious response instead of childish one liners to point out my lack of grammar skills. You may not agree with me and i may not agree with you but at least voice out your opinions/arguments instead of just wasting everyone's times waiting for responses.
On October 11 2012 03:18 Djzapz wrote: Feel free to do nothing =)
Now i feel like i wasted 30 mins on a person who isn't even giving me the courtesy to at least give a serious response instead of childish one liners point out my grammatical skills. You may not agree with me and i may not agree with you but at least voice out your opinions/arguments instead of just wasting everyone's times waiting for responses.
His response was valid and you decided to add a rhetoric that didn't counter it whatsoever "you have a comment for everyone!" "you think you're so rich!"
It's absolutely ridiculous that you're peddling over such meaningless shit like that, and you didn't present an argument you simply said "If it's a big deal, fix our problem yourself!". It's a statement out of ignorance. The TSA is an abomination and most Americans realize that, it's the few people who argue semantics that don't.
Let's move on shall way? You don't need to argue over grammar or structure anymore.
ONTOPIC: Do you agree with the TSA? Since this came from somewhere. Do you think she should have been checked so vigorously? And do you fear planes such that you believe the amount of power the TSA has is realistic to the amount of danger you have when getting on a plane (about the same chances of getting hit on the head with a coconut and being eaten by a shark at the same time :D)
On October 11 2012 03:18 Djzapz wrote: Feel free to do nothing =)
Now i feel like i wasted 30 mins on a person who isn't even giving me the courtesy to at least give a serious response instead of childish one liners point out my grammatical skills. You may not agree with me and i may not agree with you but at least voice out your opinions/arguments instead of just wasting everyone's times waiting for responses.
His response was valid and you decided to add a rhetoric that didn't counter it whatsoever "you have a comment for everyone!" "you think you're so rich!"
It's absolutely ridiculous that you're peddling over such meaningless shit like that, and you didn't present an argument you simply said "If it's a big deal, fix our problem yourself!". It's a statement out of ignorance. The TSA is an abomination and most Americans realize that, it's the few people who argue semantics that don't.
Let's move on shall way? You don't need to argue over grammar or structure anymore.
Your right, i was going to retort with another one liner but i decided to spend my time typing out a response explaining the American mindset, but at the same time why we put with the TSA.
If you read my response i do agree the TSA is an abomination, which leads into the rest of my response.
Yes my response to the the first person was childish and i meant it more as a bad jest.
ONTOPIC: Do you agree with the TSA? Since this came from somewhere. Do you think she should have been checked so vigorously? And do you fear planes such that you believe the amount of power the TSA has is realistic to the amount of danger you have when getting on a plane (about the same chances of getting hit on the head with a coconut and being eaten by a shark at the same time :D)
Its difficult to say, obviously everyone on the internet is screaming "No its not alright" But to be honest i know little of TSA procedure other than what i see at the airport
. It is more of a if you where there kind of thing if think in my humble opinion. This could of been just poorly trained TSA agents or someone who was just being rude to passangers. Most TSA agents are either neutral or even friendly at all the airports i have been to. (Note i live in NY and use JFK airport)
TSA stops nothing there are so many videos of security experts who get weapons on board. If the TSA is going to stop anything it will be the moron who has a bomb strapped to his/her chest.
I personally don't have any fear with/without the TSA but i am sure there are plenty of parents who feel just a little safer after security. The terrorist did "Win" i would agree with this idea.
On October 11 2012 03:18 Djzapz wrote: Feel free to do nothing =)
Now i feel like i wasted 30 mins on a person who isn't even giving me the courtesy to at least give a serious response instead of childish one liners point out my grammatical skills. You may not agree with me and i may not agree with you but at least voice out your opinions/arguments instead of just wasting everyone's times waiting for responses.
You spent 8 minutes at most, and what makes you feel your sloppy 8 minutes is worth more than my coherent 1-liners? If you want me to explain myself better, I'll go ahead but I won't write you an essay because it's pretty simple.
The TSA is a 8.1b a year security organization which accomplishes nothing. The reason why this is possible is because of a collective failing by Americans, their willingness to give away freedom and even their self-respect in the name of some fake sense of security. I'm not asking you specifically to do something, I'm merely questioning the weakness of the TSA's opposition in the US. I don't care that you're not willing to stand up for yourself personally - it's obvious that most people will put up with shit and won't lift a finger.
That being said, I don't understand how you can be nationalistic in the US anymore. What are you so proud of when you have old ladies getting groped in public like this, and the people who are outraged are not even in your country. There are bad people everywhere, but this is shit that your representatives do - and in this very thread you have sheep nodding and smiling. "Yeah, that's my country! mhm!!"
Every country's democracy requires some maintenance, and it seems to me like the US is left to rot. Continue not to do anything, I was being serious. But be honest with yourself and look at the slowly crumbling empire and just think about why this is happening. It's because of rampant inaction.
On October 11 2012 03:18 Djzapz wrote: Feel free to do nothing =)
Now i feel like i wasted 30 mins on a person who isn't even giving me the courtesy to at least give a serious response instead of childish one liners point out my grammatical skills. You may not agree with me and i may not agree with you but at least voice out your opinions/arguments instead of just wasting everyone's times waiting for responses.
You spent 8 minutes at most, and what makes you feel your sloppy 8 minutes is worth more than my coherent 1-liners? If you want me to explain myself better, I'll go ahead but I won't write you an essay because it's pretty simple.
The TSA is a 8.1b a year security organization which accomplishes nothing. The reason why this is possible is because of a collective failing by Americans, their willingness to give away freedom and even their self-respect in the name of some fake sense of security. I'm not asking you specifically to do something, I'm merely questioning the weakness of the TSA's opposition in the US. I don't care that you're not willing to stand up for yourself personally - it's obvious that most people will put up with shit and won't lift a finger.
That being said, I don't understand how you can be nationalistic in the US anymore. What are you so proud of when you have old ladies getting groped in public like this, and the people who are outraged are not even in your country. There are bad people everywhere, but this is shit that your representatives do - and in this very thread you have sheep nodding and smiling. "Yeah, that's my country! mhm!!"
Every country's democracy requires some maintenance, and it seems to me like the US is left to rot
Your absolutely right i don't know how i am nationalistic to be honest there must of been some sort of brainwashing (i am being semi-serious not even jesting). I know first hand and from study show just BAD our political system is, and i completely agree with almost all of your points. I was never defending the TSA just defending American "Sheepism" and its simple, we are slow to change or to stupid to change, from the view of most Europeans its probably our stupidity. American culture is brutal it doesn't really promote being "Independent" its more about being the collective if you aren't religious you are the minority, if you aren't a Republican or a Democrat you are a minority. I do wish this country could change i do love this country as is, but i would not step back if there was to be change (In the positive direction).
People who say the that airport security doesn't stop anything clearly don't realize that they are there to prevent people from trying to bring dangerous things on planes. If you want to bring a bomb onto a plane you're not just going to carry it with you and try to get through security lol. So they do protect people and indirectly stop numerous potential terrorist attacks. I've never once had a hard time getting through security so maybe I'm bias though. I certainly do feel sorry for this women and the security personnel were obviously in the wrong but almost all I've seen in this thread is tsa/america bashing with impressive amounts of hyperbole.
the TSA officers didn't have the intelligence to take her to a private room, so its their fault. That said, the screenings are better than having an explosion and 300 dead people. What if the patient was really not a patient but a guy with a bomb and the TSA people just let her through since shes just a patient and "obviously" not a threat. And then you have 300 dead people. What are you guys going to whine about if that happened? That TSA isn't doing their job and that the government fails at protecting its citizens? You guys are never going to be satisfied.
Let me remind you that 99.999% of people that walk through airport screenings go through it without any problems. Its just the few percent of idiots at TSA that do stupid things (like not giving the patient private screening) and then it gets on the news and everyone starts crying invasion of privacy and loss of freedom.
And all the people in this thread aghast by this are in the Election thread cheerleading either Obama or Romney who will continue the vast expansion of government into people's lives and businesses.
You can't have it both ways and demand the government be your nanny and protector and then get all upset when they intrude.
It's time to kick the government intrusion to the curb. Ignore the false D/R left/right paradigm and wake up to the fact they are almost the same thing.
On October 11 2012 03:51 white_horse wrote: the TSA officers didn't have the intelligence to take her to a private room, so its their fault. That said, the screenings are better than having an explosion and 300 dead people. What if the patient was really not a patient but a guy with a bomb and the TSA people just let her through since shes just a patient and "obviously" not a threat. And then you have 300 dead people. What are you guys going to whine about if that happened? That TSA isn't doing their job and that the government fails at protecting its citizens? You guys are never going to be satisfied.
Let me remind you that 99.999% of people that walk through airport screenings go through it without any problems. Its just the few percent of idiots at TSA that do stupid things (like not giving the patient private screening) and then it gets on the news and everyone starts crying invasion of privacy and loss of freedom.
True, this was an unfortunate edge case, so hopefully the TSA learns how to handle these situations -- there really should be effective mechanisms for calling ahead and pre-creening to avoid this sort of thing.
For those bashing America's voters, keep in mind that sensational news articles, public opinion, and exorbitant lawsuits are much more effective at enacting small-scale policy change than election results. If the TSA doesn't react to this, then more edge cases will eventually happen, more articles written about them, and their public image will drop even further (it's pretty bad already). Though sensational news media and knee-jerk lawsuits are somewhat annoying, it is an effective form of democracy in this country.
(...because really, we are super apathetic about political activism -- I'm pretty sure that deep down, most Americans are aware of this)
all these people acting like this was some horrible thing...You're right, she deserved more privacy than she apparently received...but it is extremely important that the TSA do everything they deem necessary to ensure safety. This is so blown out of proportion, similar to situations where a police officer uses his gun and gets reamed in the media. The security blanket that is provided should be appreciated and respected, if the officials of TSA are conducting searches in a way that their employer would not tolerate, then they should be warned/removed. Seemed to me like they were trying to make absolute sure that everything checked out. Seems like it was really just a small bump in the road and if she let it ruin her trip to Hawaii then that's a bummer
Somehow they pat-down a dying woman, but some people accidentally bring on weapons, they totally miss it. So sad. I feel like there is no consistency with these either. While I understand the security and everything, couldn't they have taken her somewhere private?
Definitely should have been allowed the privacy to be searched. I think the agents wanted to be safer than sorry and check everything just in case. It's a tough call because it does not sound like a humanitarian act, but the second that we take the TSA away and then there is an act of terrorism (domestic or foreign), us Americans are gunna start bitching and wondering why we didn't have stricter security and it all starts over again.
Looking at the picture, I really can't tell that she is dying. In fact she looks perfectly fine. The people at TSA are not mind readers - they are just doing their job.
On October 11 2012 04:47 MasterMonkey wrote: Definitely should have been allowed the privacy to be searched. I think the agents wanted to be safer than sorry and check everything just in case. It's a tough call because it does not sound like a humanitarian act, but the second that we take the TSA away and then there is an act of terrorism (domestic or foreign), us Americans are gunna start bitching and wondering why we didn't have stricter security and it all starts over again.
The solution is not to get rid of the TSA; instead, we ought to streamline and optimize the agency, bringing it out of this weird 2001-2004 timeloop in which the performativity of airline security is more important than the reality. No longer can a government agency simply pander to the lowest common denominator of unabased public fear and use it to justify outlandish regulations that, in fact, affect safety very little if at all.
have you guys actually been to an airport lately and seen the long lines? If every silly-bugger gets his private room, no one would catch his/her plane anymore
TSA is a joke. Their searches aren't random at all. The only time I was every randomly picked was when I went to the airport with spray paint all over my hands.
On October 11 2012 04:54 Rimstalker wrote: have you guys actually been to an airport lately and seen the long lines? If every silly-bugger gets his private room, no one would catch his/her plane anymore
I don't know which german airport you are at, but where are the long lines lately? I fly regularly because of my job for about 10 years and hardly anything has changed in waiting time.
The searching of her wasn't wrong, it needs to be done. The refusal of privacy, however, is inexcusable
If this woman had called ahead and made arrangements like she says she did, then surely they should have been prepared to offer her a private room to carry out the search. This is a definite abuse of authority.
It sounds like a woman who was sick was under the mistaken notion that she would grt through securit since she had papers and therefore could not be a terrorist. So after being patted down she was deemed suspicious(what with tubes in her) and she asked "is this an appropriate place for this?" and the agent said yea girl.
She then went to the news and sensationalized the sht out of it. This has a parallel in my own life: Warning: NSFW + Show Spoiler +
So i had a friend(koogly we will call her) who was jealous of me feelig her other friends boobs. Her other friend also said ahe gives handjobs to friends(awesome right?) so i was texting koogly and i told her i wanted a hj from her other friend. Koogly lamented that no one wants her and that she would give friends hjs. I found out from kooglys other friends that she was jealous of me playing with her other friends boobs(they both are double d btw). So i invited koogly to the beach and took her to the secret tree fortress where people go to hook up a little ways down the beach. The waves were crashing and she didnt want to go to the fortress because of waves, but i convinced her. When there, without awkwardness, i started playing with her boobs(i had done this before that summer). Eventually, i whipped my penis out and I'll be honest here, she didnt really react so i put her hand on my penis. She then proceeded to give me a hj and took requests on technique. About the time when i was nearing cumming, she said she needed to be home but i said i was almost there so she finished me off and then we went back, and i biked her home and then biked home myself.
She later told two people(close friends of both of ours) that i raped her, and that she tried to not give me an hj by not wanting to go to the tree fortress through waves and then having togo home before it was over, but i couldnt be stopped.
That's bullshit. If you comply with requests and don't blatantly say no, you can't claim mistreatment. It's the same in this case. Gotta be clear with what you want, don't back talk the waiter for not refilling your nonfree refill drink when you didnt ask
I've wanted to get that story off my chest for a while now, because i sit with koogly at lucnh and ahe doesnt know i know and we are good friends. I promise i didn't go away from that event feeling like i had raped anyone. In fact, i thought i was doin her a favor considering her jealousy of me with her other friends
They should equip TSA staff with tablets (ipad etc).
Whenever someone has a cry, or whenever people in this thread have a cry, bust out the tablet show them the 9/11 footage. Hopefully that would shut up alot of people very quickly.
How would you feel, if she got on the plane, and it blew up because of her? As in, the 0.001% chance that the story given to the TSA agents was fake, and they didn't check her out. Would you want that on your conscience?
You ask the families of those who lost loved ones in 9/11, or other terrorist activity. They prey on your 'it'll be ok' mentality. They prey on your 'won't happen to me... couldn't be happening' mentality.
It does look like the situation was not handled correctly (privacy etc), but those saying that it's silly to check her out......... please.... have some respect for the people who have lost loved ones to terrorists.
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
Yeah pretty much anyone who isn't at the capital building picketing five days a week both agrees with and endorses the actions of the TSA.
On October 11 2012 05:13 Trusty wrote: They should equip TSA staff with tablets (ipad etc).
Whenever someone has a cry, or whenever people in this thread have a cry, bust out the tablet show them the 9/11 footage. Hopefully that would shut up alot of people very quickly.
How would you feel, if she got on the plane, and it blew up because of her? As in, the 0.001% chance that the story given to the TSA agents was fake, and they didn't check her out. Would you want that on your conscience?
You ask the families of those who lost loved ones in 9/11, or other terrorist activity. They prey on your 'it'll be ok' mentality. They prey on your 'won't happen to me... couldn't be happening' mentality.
It does look like the situation was not handled correctly (privacy etc), but those saying that it's silly to check her out......... please.... have some respect for the people who have lost loved ones to terrorists.
Ben Franklin
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
Only cowards hide behind incidents and "respect" has nothing to do with it. By this we should check every person walking into a bank for weapons, we should have security checks every half miles on the interstate and we should have every single person in a poor area patted down since it has the highest crime rates. It's so disrespectful to the familes who have lost people to gun violence to not have these people patted down! How could you? Didn't you ever see a video of a person being shot, maybe we should bust out a tablet and play it!
Such ridiculous rhetoric, absolutely astounding you think 9/11 is a valid argument for that video.
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
Yeah pretty much anyone who isn't at the capital building picketing five days a week both agrees with and endorses the actions of the TSA.
I see what you did there! "squnits" I see it!
I do agree, it's ridiculous to blame all Americans so directly for the actions of the TSA but people (Canada included, feel I have to state this now since people always seem to assume I mean America directly) have become to complacent with what is going on around the world, everything is becoming like the movie V for Vendetta, sit down shut up and walk straight or else!
I dunno, it's a problem across the board that I don't know how to fix, we just don't seem to care anymore about things we took for granted before.
On October 11 2012 02:50 VashtaNerada wrote: Let's muddy the waters a bit.
It's probably safe to assume that the TSA catches few, if any, crimes. I have a combination lock on the gate from my front yard to my back yard. I'm well aware that it only takes a few seconds and a good pair of bolt cutters to bypass that "security" measure. However... it takes a few seconds and a good pair of bolt cutters. A determined thief can still break in, but it's not as easy to do so. The TSA works off of the same principle. It might be possible to get a bomb onto a plane but it's a lot more difficult to do so. It's not a guaranteed preventative measure, but it drives up the resources, time, and planning that it takes. There's some synergy there with law enforcement - the longer it takes to develop an attack, the greater the likelihood something goes wrong and you get caught. Chances are, that's happened before but it doesn't make a big media splash.
Next, let's put ourselves in the shoes of some hapless TSA agent. In comes a patient in a wheelchair, complete with saline bags and bandaging with something obviously under it. Yes, it's far more likely that this is a sick person going to visit their dying relatives than a drug smuggler or terrorist... so you've got a choice, and they both suck. You either do your security check and risk looking like a jerk, or you wave them through and risk missing something important. There's definitely a caveat here: you should still treat people with dignity and respect. If you've got to do a thorough pat-down, take it somewhere private.
I don't particularly enjoy going through TSA security. I don't know if its existence is justified or not; if in the last decade it has prevented even one single incident that could kill 300 people on a plane, does that balance out the inconvenience and occasional abuse of authority? Is this just another slice of freedom that we've lost, another step towards some dystopian authoritarian bureaucracy? I haven't got any answers for those questions, but I think the issues with TSA are a lot more complex than "the lines suck and getting patted down is undignified and I've never seen anyone get caught with a bomb."
On October 11 2012 04:54 Rimstalker wrote: have you guys actually been to an airport lately and seen the long lines? If every silly-bugger gets his private room, no one would catch his/her plane anymore
I don't know which german airport you are at, but where are the long lines lately? I fly regularly because of my job for about 10 years and hardly anything has changed in waiting time.
I'm talking about TSA-ran airports. I have been to some lately. 3 hours for a simple transfer WITHIN one terminal
On October 11 2012 04:54 Rimstalker wrote: have you guys actually been to an airport lately and seen the long lines? If every silly-bugger gets his private room, no one would catch his/her plane anymore
I don't know which german airport you are at, but where are the long lines lately? I fly regularly because of my job for about 10 years and hardly anything has changed in waiting time.
I'm talking about TSA-ran airports. I have been to some lately. 3 hours for a simple transfer WITHIN one terminal
Yeah I was traveling through America for about... 2-3 weeks (like 18 days or something) and I spent more time sitting in a terminal playing on my laptop than I did visiting. Obviously that's exaggerated but the wait was ridiculous and my laptop was flagged and I was taken aside for about 10-20 minutes as they interogated me "Where are you going" "Business or pleasure" "has anyone asked you to take anything" "Is this yours" .... Like a fuck I just wanted to get to Florida and see Bush Gardens motherfuckers.
A lot of America flaming going on in this thread. But I won't get into that.
What the TSA agents did was awful. I'm not sure if anything's going to really happen to them other than a slap on the wrist though. The poor old lady was sick and in a wheelchair and they couldn't exercise a bit more caution? I suppose she should have been more assertive about being searched right in front of everybody too though if she wanted to save herself the embarrassment. Sounds like she just slightly hinted at wanting privacy to a couple of TSA agents who didn't care (but should have).
On October 11 2012 05:13 Trusty wrote: They should equip TSA staff with tablets (ipad etc).
Whenever someone has a cry, or whenever people in this thread have a cry, bust out the tablet show them the 9/11 footage. Hopefully that would shut up alot of people very quickly.
How would you feel, if she got on the plane, and it blew up because of her? As in, the 0.001% chance that the story given to the TSA agents was fake, and they didn't check her out. Would you want that on your conscience?
You ask the families of those who lost loved ones in 9/11, or other terrorist activity. They prey on your 'it'll be ok' mentality. They prey on your 'won't happen to me... couldn't be happening' mentality.
It does look like the situation was not handled correctly (privacy etc), but those saying that it's silly to check her out......... please.... have some respect for the people who have lost loved ones to terrorists.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
Only cowards hide behind incidents and "respect" has nothing to do with it. By this we should check every person walking into a bank for weapons, we should have security checks every half miles on the interstate and we should have every single person in a poor area patted down since it has the highest crime rates. It's so disrespectful to the familes who have lost people to gun violence to not have these people patted down! How could you? Didn't you ever see a video of a person being shot, maybe we should bust out a tablet and play it!
Such ridiculous rhetoric, absolutely astounding you think 9/11 is a valid argument for that video.
Have you ever lost someone close to violence? I know it shouldn't change your opinion, but I can assure you it does.
You wake up everyday, wishing they were here. Sometimes you forget, and wake up expecting them to be beside you, then cold hard reality kicks in.
You ask why it happens, why it happened to you. Eventually after blaming yourself and others, you want to just make sure it doesn't happen to other people.
I don't want to type a big sob story, but I hope you might be able to find some empathy with people who have lost loved ones to violence.
Honestly my wish is just check everyone. check everyone and everything. I know it's not feasible to do it, but I wish it could be. The only other options are checking some people, or nobody. I strongly know which of those I prefer.
I think you are the kind of person that sees acts of violence on TV and the news, but doesn't think to comprehend what it means. You read "someone got shot and robbed" you might have a passing thought "man thats sad"... but if you stop and think hard about how you would feel RIGHT THEN if it was your girlfriend/wife/parent/brother.
On October 11 2012 05:13 Trusty wrote: They should equip TSA staff with tablets (ipad etc).
Whenever someone has a cry, or whenever people in this thread have a cry, bust out the tablet show them the 9/11 footage. Hopefully that would shut up alot of people very quickly.
How would you feel, if she got on the plane, and it blew up because of her? As in, the 0.001% chance that the story given to the TSA agents was fake, and they didn't check her out. Would you want that on your conscience?
You ask the families of those who lost loved ones in 9/11, or other terrorist activity. They prey on your 'it'll be ok' mentality. They prey on your 'won't happen to me... couldn't be happening' mentality.
It does look like the situation was not handled correctly (privacy etc), but those saying that it's silly to check her out......... please.... have some respect for the people who have lost loved ones to terrorists.
Ben Franklin
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
Only cowards hide behind incidents and "respect" has nothing to do with it. By this we should check every person walking into a bank for weapons, we should have security checks every half miles on the interstate and we should have every single person in a poor area patted down since it has the highest crime rates. It's so disrespectful to the familes who have lost people to gun violence to not have these people patted down! How could you? Didn't you ever see a video of a person being shot, maybe we should bust out a tablet and play it!
Such ridiculous rhetoric, absolutely astounding you think 9/11 is a valid argument for that video.
What would you do?
I'd probably start arguing with appeals to emotion too. That would be so sad. =/
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
Man, its almost like we suffered the worst terrorist act of all time on two buildings that housed worldwide firms. It's almost like fought a war that, though unethical in a lot of manners, destroyed an entire culture of islamic extremism. I'm sorry for our opisska and the fact that they somehow represent everything about America to you. My bad that my government (which if you knew about our government or history at all, you would know why its not the voters ability to create committees like these). I'm also sorry that we bought into these "terrorist stories" that don't exist except for 9/11, the madrid bombins, the destruction of the pentagon, I can go on. Take a step back dude, Americans hate it, but the TSA agents also hate doing this they aren't satan, these things happen infrequently. The fact that very few bad stories come out and then people become outraged in foreign countries is ridiculous. The TSA isn't enough of an issue right now compared with our other domestic problems. I would suggest not assuming so much about an enormous group of people.
On October 11 2012 05:13 Trusty wrote: They should equip TSA staff with tablets (ipad etc).
Whenever someone has a cry, or whenever people in this thread have a cry, bust out the tablet show them the 9/11 footage. Hopefully that would shut up alot of people very quickly.
How would you feel, if she got on the plane, and it blew up because of her? As in, the 0.001% chance that the story given to the TSA agents was fake, and they didn't check her out. Would you want that on your conscience?
You ask the families of those who lost loved ones in 9/11, or other terrorist activity. They prey on your 'it'll be ok' mentality. They prey on your 'won't happen to me... couldn't be happening' mentality.
It does look like the situation was not handled correctly (privacy etc), but those saying that it's silly to check her out......... please.... have some respect for the people who have lost loved ones to terrorists.
Ben Franklin
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
Only cowards hide behind incidents and "respect" has nothing to do with it. By this we should check every person walking into a bank for weapons, we should have security checks every half miles on the interstate and we should have every single person in a poor area patted down since it has the highest crime rates. It's so disrespectful to the familes who have lost people to gun violence to not have these people patted down! How could you? Didn't you ever see a video of a person being shot, maybe we should bust out a tablet and play it!
Such ridiculous rhetoric, absolutely astounding you think 9/11 is a valid argument for that video.
What would you do?
I'd probably start arguing with appeals to emotion too. That would be so sad. =/
I guess it is sad... but if you were sure of something that was going to hurt other people you care about, because it happened to you, would you not try any way possible to stop it happening to them?
This is the reality we live in now. Certain individuals ruined it for the rest of the world, and now we all must be subject to things that arent fair anymore. It is unfortunate, but life isnt fair. Either find a way to deal with it or move to the moon.
No one can be trusted in an airport. I dont trust a single person on my plane until they have been searched and secured, I dont care who it is, how old they are, their disability, or anything else. The TSA dont give a shit what your opinion is. Their job is to keep everyone safe, and they will do what they have to in order to do that. If you dont agree, or you dont like it, then dont use the airport. It is that simple.
Asking someone "do you think this is an appropriate location" is not asking for a private room, so that's not really any breach of policy. Asking "Can you take me somewhere else to do this" is different from the statement she made in the article.
Anyway, people are too damn sensitive. Who gives a flying fuck what the rest of the people in line think? You're never going to see them again whether you have leukemia or not. And you still need to be checked like the rest of the people in the airport, regardless of health circumstances. Not my fault and not TSA's fault that you've got more places to hide things, and items outside of regulations that they need to specially check.
On October 11 2012 05:13 Trusty wrote: They should equip TSA staff with tablets (ipad etc).
Whenever someone has a cry, or whenever people in this thread have a cry, bust out the tablet show them the 9/11 footage. Hopefully that would shut up alot of people very quickly.
How would you feel, if she got on the plane, and it blew up because of her? As in, the 0.001% chance that the story given to the TSA agents was fake, and they didn't check her out. Would you want that on your conscience?
You ask the families of those who lost loved ones in 9/11, or other terrorist activity. They prey on your 'it'll be ok' mentality. They prey on your 'won't happen to me... couldn't be happening' mentality.
It does look like the situation was not handled correctly (privacy etc), but those saying that it's silly to check her out......... please.... have some respect for the people who have lost loved ones to terrorists.
Ben Franklin
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
Only cowards hide behind incidents and "respect" has nothing to do with it. By this we should check every person walking into a bank for weapons, we should have security checks every half miles on the interstate and we should have every single person in a poor area patted down since it has the highest crime rates. It's so disrespectful to the familes who have lost people to gun violence to not have these people patted down! How could you? Didn't you ever see a video of a person being shot, maybe we should bust out a tablet and play it!
Such ridiculous rhetoric, absolutely astounding you think 9/11 is a valid argument for that video.
What would you do?
I'd probably start arguing with appeals to emotion too. That would be so sad. =/
I guess it is sad... but if you were sure of something that was going to hurt other people you care about, because it happened to you, would you not try any way possible to stop it happening to them?
Getting way off topic I guess... sorry.
Well that's just called preaching. The crazy variety is even more annoying
We have a senator here in Canada who's entire platform is and has always been to get the laws to be tougher on crime. He doesn't do anything else really, just tough on crime legislation, and that's because both his daughters were killed and now he's angry or something.
He knows that "tough on crime" doesn't serve any practical purpose as evidenced by essentially all research ever, but that's still his thing because he's driven by emotion and cannot be objective. Why would we follow the lead of a man who's unable to think clearly? Good intentions are not enough to run a country, there's a need for expertise and real understanding of how to do shit.
On October 11 2012 05:55 phyre112 wrote: Asking someone "do you think this is an appropriate location" is not asking for a private room, so that's not really any breach of policy. Asking "Can you take me somewhere else to do this" is different from the statement she made in the article.
Anyway, people are too damn sensitive. Who gives a flying fuck what the rest of the people in line think? You're never going to see them again whether you have leukemia or not. And you still need to be checked like the rest of the people in the airport, regardless of health circumstances. Not my fault and not TSA's fault that you've got more places to hide things, and items outside of regulations that they need to specially check.
On October 11 2012 04:47 MasterMonkey wrote: Definitely should have been allowed the privacy to be searched. I think the agents wanted to be safer than sorry and check everything just in case. It's a tough call because it does not sound like a humanitarian act, but the second that we take the TSA away and then there is an act of terrorism (domestic or foreign), us Americans are gunna start bitching and wondering why we didn't have stricter security and it all starts over again.
The solution is not to get rid of the TSA; instead, we ought to streamline and optimize the agency, bringing it out of this weird 2001-2004 timeloop in which the performativity of airline security is more important than the reality. No longer can a government agency simply pander to the lowest common denominator of unabased public fear and use it to justify outlandish regulations that, in fact, affect safety very little if at all.
I definitely agree, it's time for TSA to adapt and time for some internal reform.
On October 11 2012 05:13 Trusty wrote: They should equip TSA staff with tablets (ipad etc).
Whenever someone has a cry, or whenever people in this thread have a cry, bust out the tablet show them the 9/11 footage. Hopefully that would shut up alot of people very quickly.
How would you feel, if she got on the plane, and it blew up because of her? As in, the 0.001% chance that the story given to the TSA agents was fake, and they didn't check her out. Would you want that on your conscience?
You ask the families of those who lost loved ones in 9/11, or other terrorist activity. They prey on your 'it'll be ok' mentality. They prey on your 'won't happen to me... couldn't be happening' mentality.
It does look like the situation was not handled correctly (privacy etc), but those saying that it's silly to check her out......... please.... have some respect for the people who have lost loved ones to terrorists.
Ben Franklin
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
Only cowards hide behind incidents and "respect" has nothing to do with it. By this we should check every person walking into a bank for weapons, we should have security checks every half miles on the interstate and we should have every single person in a poor area patted down since it has the highest crime rates. It's so disrespectful to the familes who have lost people to gun violence to not have these people patted down! How could you? Didn't you ever see a video of a person being shot, maybe we should bust out a tablet and play it!
Such ridiculous rhetoric, absolutely astounding you think 9/11 is a valid argument for that video.
Have you ever lost someone close to violence? I know it shouldn't change your opinion, but I can assure you it does.
You wake up everyday, wishing they were here. Sometimes you forget, and wake up expecting them to be beside you, then cold hard reality kicks in.
You ask why it happens, why it happened to you. Eventually after blaming yourself and others, you want to just make sure it doesn't happen to other people.
I don't want to type a big sob story, but I hope you might be able to find some empathy with people who have lost loved ones to violence.
Honestly my wish is just check everyone. check everyone and everything. I know it's not feasible to do it, but I wish it could be. The only other options are checking some people, or nobody. I strongly know which of those I prefer.
I think you are the kind of person that sees acts of violence on TV and the news, but doesn't think to comprehend what it means. You read "someone got shot and robbed" you might have a passing thought "man thats sad"... but if you stop and think hard about how you would feel RIGHT THEN if it was your girlfriend/wife/parent/brother.
What would you do?
I would have no opinion on the subject... That is exactly why parents don't judge their daughters/sons killer because the mind that is torn with grief is subject to irrational decisions.
I am full of empathy and I've seen enough shit, maybe not the most but definitely not the least. The fact remains you used 9//11 as some type of jockey to throw your point out when it was not a valid statement, there are lists a mile high of things that are more likely to kill you then terrorism and are preventable by similar privacy intrusions that the TSA employees but I don't see you advocating them.
Safety breeds ignorance and dependence, it does not empower a population nor does it just inhibit crime and the prevention of future crime at the expense of liberty is what America fought against. Americans should be stomping down the doors fighting for their rights, not sitting back and pondering what's next.
Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President.
On October 11 2012 05:52 ishyishy wrote: This is the reality we live in now. Certain individuals ruined it for the rest of the world, and now we all must be subject to things that arent fair anymore. It is unfortunate, but life isnt fair. Either find a way to deal with it or move to the moon.
No one can be trusted in an airport. I dont trust a single person on my plane until they have been searched and secured, I dont care who it is, how old they are, their disability, or anything else. The TSA dont give a shit what your opinion is. Their job is to keep everyone safe, and they will do what they have to in order to do that. If you dont agree, or you dont like it, then dont use the airport. It is that simple.
What's so special about airports and planes? No one can be trusted anywhere. Terrorists blow up buses, trains, and subways more often so shouldn't we have strict security for those too? Car bombs are pretty popular so maybe all cars should have to be screened upon entering a highway. Anyone walking down the street could be a terrorist with a bomb so we need to search them too. At this point, you may as well stay home all day, except a terrorist could still blow you up there. You'll have to move to the moon, I guess.
The actual reality we live in is that you can be killed any time, any place, and there isn't a damn thing the government can do to save you. That doesn't mean we should forego all attempts at safety; we had airport security before 2002, after all, but the line between reasonable precautions and insane policy has been crossed. The only reason the TSA exists is to give people a false sense of security. Do you think that delusion is worth the price you pay for it?
For the record, I've been through TSA screening dozens of times and never so much as received a pat-down or bag check. Despite my personal experience, most people I know have had negative experiences with them, and even if they hadn't, the TSA is still an overreach of federal authority and a huge waste of money.
On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President.
What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit...
Also, while we can argue about big vs. small government all day, I think we both have to agree (well, I hope) that no matter which direction we take, it must be done gradually. It seems to me like the so-called libertarians that we have today have those ridiculously drastic spending cuts that are completely unreasonable in their timeframe. Also, what to think of the social inequalities that would obviously be created from those governments which would remove so many social services?
I know this is off topic, and I don't know you well, but Ron Paul's platform has always been one of a complete revamp of the US from its very core, a monster plan that would take decades to put into place even WITH the support of congress.
The guy just doesn't occur to me as a candidate that's much better than Obama (who I'm not impressed with btw). It seems like all 3 candidates have their flaws. Romney's too far right although he can clearly adapt to any position, Obama seems to have a hard time handling his government and Paul's just got these weird nonsensical ideas about the economy and seems to have some downright retarded views about abortion.
well, i hope they change. i'm not middle-eastern, but i happen to look a bit middle eastern. let me tell you, pat-downs aren't "random". Every fucking time i'm at the airport, TSA asks me to step out of line. We went to mexico this year, and I told my cousin to wait up for me cause I was gonna get patted down. She called me an idiot. I step into the x-ray machine, and they guy asks me to step over for a pat-down. she shut up afterwards. my bro's been sent to immigration for questioning before (almost missed our connection because of it). i've been to immigration before, and man, that entire room was full of middle-eastern people. one dude was at the airport the whole day because the airport sent his case to DC to get cleared. racial-profiling for the win. Did I mention, I just look middle-eastern, and not actually one.
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
So this is something I've always wondered. In the US, there is a constant state of low fear that terrorists or even just some crazy dude will come and blow up a plane or something, which is supposed to be the justification for the TSA, Patriot Act, and all that. Obviously, much of this is fabricated by politicians as a means of maintaining the status quo and their incumbency by using fear as a voter motivation, and allowing them to beef up security measures to pretend like they are doing something important. I recognize that in general, Americans probably are more afraid of potential attacks than the actual threat would deserve.
However, I do feel like because it is the US, and because of its image and stature in the world, it [i]is[i] more likely to attacked by some fanatical individual or group than, say, the Czech Republic. I think it is not unreasonable or arrogant to put forth the claim that America probably faces a larger risk of potential attack than other Western countries. However, I'm just not sure how much of a legitimate threat there is, and whether the risk of an attack is great enough to warrant all the breaches of privacy increased security bring along. If the US were really in as much danger as politicians would like us to believe, then hell, we need even more surveillance of airports and passengers coming into the states. But obviously that isn't the case, so with a lesser degree of threat, there is a lesser degree of security needed. The question in my mind is how much is needed.
The guy directly beyond ytour post answered it quite well, but let me clarify, what is wrong in there. While I agree that if there is a standing threat of terrorism, the US is the more likely target than the Czech Republic, i find it questionable that anything that the TSA does is of much help.
Let's say we decide that the security at the airport is necessary. Then still, is it more safe if they are being assholes while doing it? This simple case may not be a good example, but very often there are stories about the TSA basically rushing to embarass, hurt or annoy certain people as much as possible. It's not like if it was an actual terrorist, this is going to help anyhow, because the terrorist is supposed to be trained to handle that. So it's just them being assholes for the sake of being assholes.
Now let's say that the terrorist thread is real. If so, then why just airports? Go ask to Madrid, how much their airport security one of the toughest in Europe now) helped them when someone bombed the commuter trains. And no way you can ever put any security on commuter trains, they would become completely useless. In our society, there is always something you can just bomb and kill a ton of people. So why the obsession with planes?
On October 11 2012 05:55 phyre112 wrote: Asking someone "do you think this is an appropriate location" is not asking for a private room, so that's not really any breach of policy. Asking "Can you take me somewhere else to do this" is different from the statement she made in the article.
Anyway, people are too damn sensitive. Who gives a flying fuck what the rest of the people in line think? You're never going to see them again whether you have leukemia or not. And you still need to be checked like the rest of the people in the airport, regardless of health circumstances. Not my fault and not TSA's fault that you've got more places to hide things, and items outside of regulations that they need to specially check.
Cant agree more.
If this is true, since I didn't read the article, then in my view there is nothing wrong done by the TSA, simply just mis-communication.
On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President.
What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit...
The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar...
The pro-life stance is very libertarian depending on when you believe life begins. It's a tough balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of an unborn baby; you can't just call either side of the debate retarded.
Ron Paul isn't a third candidate or anything though. He's essentially out of politics at this point once his House term expires in January. Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 2012.
On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President.
What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit...
The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar...
You DO realize that things changed dramatically since 1971? =_= Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/
The pro-life stance is very libertarian depending on when you believe life begins. It's a tough balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of an unborn baby; you can't just call either side of the debate retarded.
Fetus is the word you want to use. Can't just call everything an "unborn baby" because it might be eaten by a person someday and become part of an organism. Either way, I guess we just have to disagree.
Ron Paul isn't a third candidate or anything though. He's essentially out of politics at this point once his House term expires in January. Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 2012.
On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President.
What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit...
The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar...
You DO realize that things changed dramatically since 1971? =_= Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/
The pro-life stance is very libertarian depending on when you believe life begins. It's a tough balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of an unborn baby; you can't just call either side of the debate retarded.
Fetus is the word you want to use. Can't just call everything an "unborn baby" because it might be eaten by a person someday and become part of an organism. Either way, I guess we just have to disagree.
Ron Paul isn't a third candidate or anything though. He's essentially out of politics at this point once his House term expires in January. Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 2012.
I'm well aware of that.
We can't go back to the gold standard, but things would be much better if we never left it. The middle class would be much better off.
User was warned for derailing the thread with off topic discussion.
On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote: She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events.
spoken like a true american... maybe not everything has to be solved in a courtroom?
I would imagine the majority of people share the same standpoint on this: if she is telling the truth, then TSA crossed the line (their stories about the removing of the bandage conflict for one) and she should pursue this with a lawyer, assuming she wants to before she dies. If TSA is telling the truth (less likely), then it's just another person trying to scam the system and she'll be brushed aside. Especially less likely since she her date is arriving quite quickly as well.
I'll save my distasteful comments towards TSA until a verdict is reached.
On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President.
What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit...
The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar...
Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/
No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history?
Actually guys, the airport security in US is a joke. I was flying from an Eastern European country once and the security there was tight. You send bags through and X-ray and get a pat-down just to enter the airport building. They make you turn on your cellphone and open your wallet and they inspect your belt and everything. They also made me open my luggage twice to inspect it. The security guard even made me drink the contents of one of the bottles that was in it. In Canada, it takes like 2 minutes to pass security, really not the same effect.
Honestly, the airport security was just doing a good, thorough job. Props to them for that. Sure, they could have given the woman a little bit of privacy so she wouldn't be so embarrassed but it is in no way newsworthy.
There are child slaves dying in Africa by the hundreds and people here are making a huge deal of "woman being embarrassed and slightly inconvenienced at airport" Calm down.
On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President.
What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit...
The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar...
Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/
No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history?
Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day?
Anyway what's the difference between fiat currency and currency based on an artificially inflated stock of gold with an assigned value which is not much less fictitious than what we've got now.
But let's say we do it for the lulz, what do you do when all your banks spend billions of dollars restructuring the entire system to base it on gold and the rest of the world doesn't follow - then every year, especially with the US's massive trade deficit, you'll be exporting the basis of your currency, until at some point you won't have enough to back the foreign currency. A gold standard is incredibly rigid and restricting. Especially since, like, we use gold to make shit.
ser was warned for derailing the thread with off topic discussion.
On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President.
What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit...
The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar...
Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/
No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history?
Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day?
I can easily justify why I wouldn't drive a steam-powered car. Can you so easily justify our monetary policy?
Look, this discussion is going like this: You: My positions are OBVIOUSLY correct! Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy! Me: Why are your positions correct? You: They just are!
I think you need to take a step back and consider that some of your obvious truths have valid opposing views, and people aren't always crazy for suggesting them.
ser was warned for derailing the thread with off topic discussion.
On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President.
What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit...
The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar...
Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/
No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history?
Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day?
I can easily justify why I wouldn't drive a steam-powered car. Can you so easily justify our monetary policy?
Look, this discussion is going like this: You: My positions are OBVIOUSLY correct! Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy! Me: Why are your positions correct? You: They just are!
I think you need to take a step back and consider that some of your obvious truths have valid opposing views, and people aren't always crazy for suggesting them.
You cut my explanation out of your quote and you said that I didn't provide an explanation. That's what your post amounts to. What am I supposed to do with that?
They should have done it in private. Doing it in public is just stupid and cruel. They still should have searched her, though. Terrorists are cold, heartless motherfuckers. They will use men, women, children, animals and even blackmailed people to get the bombs in. Even worse, they will use whatever tactic they can. They will put explosives in shoes, underwear, medical equipment and even inside the very body of the bomber. It would have been nice if they could replace all the things they disrupted, but honestly they kinda had to search her.
On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President.
What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit...
The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar...
Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/
No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history?
Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day?
I can easily justify why I wouldn't drive a steam-powered car. Can you so easily justify our monetary policy?
Look, this discussion is going like this: You: My positions are OBVIOUSLY correct! Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy! Me: Why are your positions correct? You: They just are!
I think you need to take a step back and consider that some of your obvious truths have valid opposing views, and people aren't always crazy for suggesting them.
You cut my explanation out of your quote and you said that I didn't provide an explanation. That's what your post amounts to. What am I supposed to do with that?
Your "explanation" was woefully insufficient, but that wasn't the point. I'm not trying to have an economic debate with you (or an abortion debate). I'm not an economist and you probably aren't either. The point is that people who actually are economists debate this kind of stuff all the time, and neither side is obviously wrong. You can't go around calling everyone crazy and retarded for holding opposing views in complex situations.
Getting back on topic, it bothers me when people say we need to maintain the status quo for no reason other than it's the status quo. Airport security was fine before 9/11, and the TSA wouldn't have stopped the attacks had it existed anyway. Spending billions every year to prevent people from bringing bottles of water, jars of peanut butter, and toenail clippers on board airplanes is wasteful and needs to stop, yet people defend the agency just because it exists. If the federal government created the Cute Puppy Hugging Agency, people would justify its existence on the grounds that hugging puppies is good and we can't possibly do without that.
On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President.
What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit...
The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar...
Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/
No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history?
Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day?
I can easily justify why I wouldn't drive a steam-powered car. Can you so easily justify our monetary policy?
Look, this discussion is going like this: You: My positions are OBVIOUSLY correct! Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy! Me: Why are your positions correct? You: They just are!
I think you need to take a step back and consider that some of your obvious truths have valid opposing views, and people aren't always crazy for suggesting them.
You cut my explanation out of your quote and you said that I didn't provide an explanation. That's what your post amounts to. What am I supposed to do with that?
Your "explanation" was woefully insufficient, but that wasn't the point. I'm not trying to have an economic debate with you (or an abortion debate). I'm not an economist and you probably aren't either. The point is that people who actually are economists debate this kind of stuff all the time, and neither side is obviously wrong. You can't go around calling everyone crazy and retarded for holding opposing views in complex situations.
Getting back on topic, it bothers me when people say we need to maintain the status quo for no reason other than it's the status quo. Airport security was fine before 9/11, and the TSA wouldn't have stopped the attacks had it existed anyway. Spending billions every year to prevent people from bringing bottles of water, jars of peanut butter, and toenail clippers on board airplanes is wasteful and needs to stop, yet people defend the agency just because it exists. If the federal government created the Cute Puppy Hugging Agency, people would justify its existence on the grounds that hugging puppies is good and we can't possibly do without that.
Why would the TSA not have stopped the attacks? Just curious, because it seems kind of hard to hijack a plane with dozens of people on it if you don't have any weapons whatsoever.
On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President.
What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit...
The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar...
Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/
No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history?
Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day?
I can easily justify why I wouldn't drive a steam-powered car. Can you so easily justify our monetary policy?
Look, this discussion is going like this: You: My positions are OBVIOUSLY correct! Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy! Me: Why are your positions correct? You: They just are!
I think you need to take a step back and consider that some of your obvious truths have valid opposing views, and people aren't always crazy for suggesting them.
You cut my explanation out of your quote and you said that I didn't provide an explanation. That's what your post amounts to. What am I supposed to do with that?
Your "explanation" was woefully insufficient, but that wasn't the point.
That was lazy of you. If you don't feel bad about yourself maybe I should start using that one too. "Woefully insufficient", argument autowin.
I'm not trying to have an economic debate with you (or an abortion debate). I'm not an economist and you probably aren't either. The point is that people who actually are economists debate this kind of stuff all the time, and neither side is obviously wrong. You can't go around calling everyone crazy and retarded for holding opposing views in complex situations.
Yeah just like climatologists constantly debate the validity of global warming... Oh wait, they don't - it's the commoners that do it while there's a consensus among the knowledgeable experts x_x
On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote: She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events.
I would be astounded if her number 1 priority at the end of her life would be revenge.... If I were her I would just try to forget about it and focus on the time I have left.
On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote: She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events.
spoken like a true american... maybe not everything has to be solved in a courtroom?
Where else would it be solved? The only other option I see is the possibility of Congress passing a law banning this type of behavior, and that's extremely unlikely with the current Congress :\
On October 11 2012 09:16 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Has the TSA ever caught a terrorist? If so how many? I'm genuinely curious about this.
Not that I know of. There have been at least two incidents where someone successfully brought a bomb on the plane but then they were unable to set it off either because the bomb didn't work properly or people tackled the guy before he could detonate it.
On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote: She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events.
Yes. the american way of life. Lets SUE.
I dont condone what the TSA agent did, but sueing doesnt help anybody. Then in the end TSA agents are gonna be to scared to seach people probably in fear of getting a lawsuit.
On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote: She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events.
Yes. the american way of life. Lets SUE.
I dont condone what the TSA agent did, but sueing doesnt help anybody. Then in the end TSA agents are gonna be to scared to seach people probably in fear of getting a lawsuit.
Your "suing doesn't help anybody" statement is blatantly false. Tell that to the families of the victims in the Buffalo Creek Disaster, a coal landslide that killed 125 people in the '70s. The coal company that caused it to happen was breaking dozens of safety regulations. The families wouldn't have received a single dime in compensation to pay for their destroyed homes, medical treatments, funerals, etc. if it wasn't for a major lawsuit.
On October 11 2012 06:13 NeMeSiS3 wrote: Sometimes I really do wish Ron Paul was going to be President.
What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit...
The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar...
Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/
No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history?
Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day?
I can easily justify why I wouldn't drive a steam-powered car. Can you so easily justify our monetary policy?
Look, this discussion is going like this: You: My positions are OBVIOUSLY correct! Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy! Me: Why are your positions correct? You: They just are!
I think you need to take a step back and consider that some of your obvious truths have valid opposing views, and people aren't always crazy for suggesting them.
You cut my explanation out of your quote and you said that I didn't provide an explanation. That's what your post amounts to. What am I supposed to do with that?
Your "explanation" was woefully insufficient, but that wasn't the point. I'm not trying to have an economic debate with you (or an abortion debate). I'm not an economist and you probably aren't either. The point is that people who actually are economists debate this kind of stuff all the time, and neither side is obviously wrong. You can't go around calling everyone crazy and retarded for holding opposing views in complex situations.
Getting back on topic, it bothers me when people say we need to maintain the status quo for no reason other than it's the status quo. Airport security was fine before 9/11, and the TSA wouldn't have stopped the attacks had it existed anyway. Spending billions every year to prevent people from bringing bottles of water, jars of peanut butter, and toenail clippers on board airplanes is wasteful and needs to stop, yet people defend the agency just because it exists. If the federal government created the Cute Puppy Hugging Agency, people would justify its existence on the grounds that hugging puppies is good and we can't possibly do without that.
Why would the TSA not have stopped the attacks? Just curious, because it seems kind of hard to hijack a plane with dozens of people on it if you don't have any weapons whatsoever.
Despite all the fancy scanners and personnel, it's really hard to detect a box cutter in someone's carry-on luggage. If 3 out of 4 hijackers made it through security with their weapons, the results wouldn't have changed.
On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote: She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events.
Yes. the american way of life. Lets SUE.
I dont condone what the TSA agent did, but sueing doesnt help anybody. Then in the end TSA agents are gonna be to scared to seach people probably in fear of getting a lawsuit.
Your "suing doesn't help anybody" statement is blatantly false. Tell that to the families of the victims in the Buffalo Creek Disaster, a coal landslide that killed 125 people in the '70s. The coal company that caused it to happen was breaking dozens of safety regulations. The families wouldn't have received a single dime in compensation to pay for their destroyed homes, medical treatments, funerals, etc. if it wasn't for a major lawsuit.
But it seems that whether the lawsuit is just or not, sueing is always the first responds.
I would rather have that the agent(s) takes a course it how to handle the situation as a sympathetic humen being. Meaning, if people have a medical condition that will embarrass them, or make them feel uncomfortable, they should move the seach to a nearby room with no windows.
I just hate that yes, the agent did something "wrong", so lets sue and it will all be good again.
The example you made is understandable. Offcause they should have been sued since the company pretty much broke the law and caused people to die in an allready dangerous working environment. You could argue whether or not Dunaj was in danger when they checked the saline bags, contaminating the fluids. etc.
But I understand that they do need to check stuff like that.
On October 11 2012 09:12 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On October 11 2012 09:06 ShadowDrgn wrote:
On October 11 2012 08:47 Djzapz wrote:
On October 11 2012 08:44 ShadowDrgn wrote:
On October 11 2012 08:33 Djzapz wrote:
On October 11 2012 08:21 ShadowDrgn wrote:
On October 11 2012 08:11 Djzapz wrote:
On October 11 2012 08:08 ShadowDrgn wrote:
On October 11 2012 06:40 Djzapz wrote: [quote] What about his crazies about all kinds of topics though? The gold standard shit was downright ridiculous, and his whole pro-life stance doesn't seem too libertarian to me. "Sanctity of life" kind of shit...
The United States was on the gold standard until 1971. Ridiculous, right? Our economy was pretty good before then, and it was only the spending on the Vietnam War that fucked us up. Sounds familiar...
Honestly do people not see why the gold standard is nonsense now? =/
No, I don't. Care to enlighten me? Why is it nonsense now yet was the policy of the United States (and pretty much the entire world) for the rest of history?
Have you ever heard of the term "conjuncture"? Something that made sense at the time doesn't necessarily make sense anymore. Would you drive a steam powered car to work every day?
I can easily justify why I wouldn't drive a steam-powered car. Can you so easily justify our monetary policy?
Look, this discussion is going like this: You: My positions are OBVIOUSLY correct! Anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy! Me: Why are your positions correct? You: They just are!
I think you need to take a step back and consider that some of your obvious truths have valid opposing views, and people aren't always crazy for suggesting them.
You cut my explanation out of your quote and you said that I didn't provide an explanation. That's what your post amounts to. What am I supposed to do with that?
Your "explanation" was woefully insufficient, but that wasn't the point. I'm not trying to have an economic debate with you (or an abortion debate). I'm not an economist and you probably aren't either. The point is that people who actually are economists debate this kind of stuff all the time, and neither side is obviously wrong. You can't go around calling everyone crazy and retarded for holding opposing views in complex situations.
Getting back on topic, it bothers me when people say we need to maintain the status quo for no reason other than it's the status quo. Airport security was fine before 9/11, and the TSA wouldn't have stopped the attacks had it existed anyway. Spending billions every year to prevent people from bringing bottles of water, jars of peanut butter, and toenail clippers on board airplanes is wasteful and needs to stop, yet people defend the agency just because it exists. If the federal government created the Cute Puppy Hugging Agency, people would justify its existence on the grounds that hugging puppies is good and we can't possibly do without that.
Why would the TSA not have stopped the attacks? Just curious, because it seems kind of hard to hijack a plane with dozens of people on it if you don't have any weapons whatsoever.
Despite all the fancy scanners and personnel, it's really hard to detect a box cutter in someone's carry-on luggage. If 3 out of 4 hijackers made it through security with their weapons, the results wouldn't have changed.
The purpose of the TSA isn't to keep weapons off planes... The purpose of the TSA is to make us think they're working hard to keep us safe. If a terrorist makes it to an airport with a plan to hijack a plane the only thing that can stop him is things like the reinforced pilot's cabin doors or the passengers themselves taking him down (as has happened). Most terrorists are either stopped before they even reach the airport, or are stopped after they got on the plane.
The TSA is security theater, put on for our entertainment, to make us feel safe. That's all people really want anyways.
The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
title is very misleading. Don't disagree with me because "Woman with Leukaemia humiliated at TSA" is very different from "Dying woman.." I thought someone was watching her die at the airport and then made fun of her corpse because that's how you humiliate a dying person. By watching them die.
On October 11 2012 10:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
SOOO happy I don't have to travel within US airports. Saw this report recently on YT about TSA agent Ramirez stealing Ipads and other agents stealing forgotten laptops, cameras and etc. The airport officials fired 38 workers but before this report, they refused to help customers knowing that it was prob their workers that took the damn stuff,
On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote: She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events.
Yes. the american way of life. Lets SUE.
I dont condone what the TSA agent did, but sueing doesnt help anybody. Then in the end TSA agents are gonna be to scared to seach people probably in fear of getting a lawsuit.
Your "suing doesn't help anybody" statement is blatantly false. Tell that to the families of the victims in the Buffalo Creek Disaster, a coal landslide that killed 125 people in the '70s. The coal company that caused it to happen was breaking dozens of safety regulations. The families wouldn't have received a single dime in compensation to pay for their destroyed homes, medical treatments, funerals, etc. if it wasn't for a major lawsuit.
But it seems that whether the lawsuit is just or not, sueing is always the first responds.
I would rather have that the agent(s) takes a course it how to handle the situation as a sympathetic humen being. Meaning, if people have a medical condition that will embarrass them, or make them feel uncomfortable, they should move the seach to a nearby room with no windows.
I just hate that yes, the agent did something "wrong", so lets sue and it will all be good again.
The example you made is understandable. Offcause they should have been sued since the company pretty much broke the law and caused people to die in an allready dangerous working environment. You could argue whether or not Dunaj was in danger when they checked the saline bags, contaminating the fluids. etc.
But I understand that they do need to check stuff like that.
And who is going to force the agents to handle situations like this as sympathetic human beings?
Some sort of enforcement is required. That's where the judicial system comes in.
On October 10 2012 18:18 neggro wrote: This is sad. And what's worse is that the security will be getting the flak on this. There must have been a communication breakdown somewhere, the officers not being informed that there were arrangements made ahead in time. They were merely doing their job on this one.
just doing there job? Is denying private search part of their job too? The TSA deserves all the flak they will get in this case, communication breakdown or not.
They were merely doing their job.
I would never try to put this against the lady in this situation, but dying or not they have to follow all necessary protocols to assure everyone's safety. I'm sure that if she had truly clearly communicated that she was uncomfortable and wanted to move elsewhere, rather than say something like "Is it alright that we do this here," that they would have promptly granted her request. Like neggro said, there is probably a miscommunication between the lady and the TSA, or the media (as seems likely in this case) is hyping it up/changing the way the events actually occurred to develop a news story....
On October 11 2012 10:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
Just because the officials steal and have been bribed (could be for a number of different motives) doesn't mean they aren't protecting people with what they do. I guess you're saying that airlines would be just as secure without them?
Also, I'd like to know what you mean by saying you can pay a fee to skip the procedure. You can travel first class or pay extra to skip the lines for being screened, but I'm not aware of any circumstance in which anybody can skip the security screen. It's not optional now days.
The more I read about the TSA, the more I wish we Americans would attempt to put a stop to it. I don't believe the TSA has even caught a terrorist (I could be wrong) and they're the most abusive and rude organization I've ever seen. This is beyond wrong, I feel so bad for her. I hope this can at least push people to create regulations against the TSA.
although i believe the agents could have handled the situation a hell of a lot more eloquently, hello private room? I don't believe anyone should really get a free pass on security searches for flying on air planes.
On October 11 2012 11:28 Shin_Gouki wrote: The more I read about the TSA, the more I wish we Americans would attempt to put a stop to it. I don't believe the TSA has even caught a terrorist (I could be wrong) and they're the most abusive and rude organization I've ever seen. This is beyond wrong, I feel so bad for her. I hope this can at least push people to create regulations against the TSA.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
These words by Benjamin Franklin seem highly relevant.
To be fair. to a certain warped view point, the very sick and dying are much more likely to be suicide bombers than others, with less to lose. The lack of privacy could be due to lack of room in the airport, as it might have been an older airport with less room.
I'm not defending what they did/ do or saying the above statements are true or accurate, just playing devils advocate, as someone should in this type of thread.
That being said the lack of privacy is disgusting, not matter the circumstances or reasons.
On October 11 2012 11:28 Shin_Gouki wrote: The more I read about the TSA, the more I wish we Americans would attempt to put a stop to it. I don't believe the TSA has even caught a terrorist (I could be wrong) and they're the most abusive and rude organization I've ever seen. This is beyond wrong, I feel so bad for her. I hope this can at least push people to create regulations against the TSA.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
These words by Benjamin Franklin seem highly relevant.
On October 11 2012 10:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
On October 11 2012 11:28 Shin_Gouki wrote: The more I read about the TSA, the more I wish we Americans would attempt to put a stop to it. I don't believe the TSA has even caught a terrorist (I could be wrong) and they're the most abusive and rude organization I've ever seen. This is beyond wrong, I feel so bad for her. I hope this can at least push people to create regulations against the TSA.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
These words by Benjamin Franklin seem highly relevant.
Key word: "Temporary." This situation seems like more of a permanent increase in safety.
You can all hate on the TSA as much as you like, but which one of you has a private jet waiting for your travel needs?
So at the end of the day, you still have to put up with their (shitty) services paying them lots of $$$, so fully knowing this and the fact that they won't lose their jobs, they do whatever the fuck they want without too much backlash.
Plus, not everyone is Muslim or has a feeding tube, so the random chance of harassment is very small so personally, I don't really give a shit.
On October 10 2012 17:15 Shady Sands wrote: She needs to find a lawyer. Only a lawsuit will put real pressure on the TSA agents responsible for this chain of events.
Yes. the american way of life. Lets SUE.
I dont condone what the TSA agent did, but sueing doesnt help anybody. Then in the end TSA agents are gonna be to scared to seach people probably in fear of getting a lawsuit.
Your "suing doesn't help anybody" statement is blatantly false. Tell that to the families of the victims in the Buffalo Creek Disaster, a coal landslide that killed 125 people in the '70s. The coal company that caused it to happen was breaking dozens of safety regulations. The families wouldn't have received a single dime in compensation to pay for their destroyed homes, medical treatments, funerals, etc. if it wasn't for a major lawsuit.
But it seems that whether the lawsuit is just or not, sueing is always the first responds.
I would rather have that the agent(s) takes a course it how to handle the situation as a sympathetic humen being. Meaning, if people have a medical condition that will embarrass them, or make them feel uncomfortable, they should move the seach to a nearby room with no windows.
I just hate that yes, the agent did something "wrong", so lets sue and it will all be good again.
The example you made is understandable. Offcause they should have been sued since the company pretty much broke the law and caused people to die in an allready dangerous working environment. You could argue whether or not Dunaj was in danger when they checked the saline bags, contaminating the fluids. etc.
But I understand that they do need to check stuff like that.
And who is going to force the agents to handle situations like this as sympathetic human beings?
Some sort of enforcement is required. That's where the judicial system comes in.
Yeah, we have to make sure that they do their job, but not under the threat of sueing them if something goes wrong.
Im all for letting the law handle cases where people abuse power and what not, but this is not such a case. The agent was insensitive to how personal a medical conditions she had. I dont see how bringing in the judicial system/sueing him, would help him see that error.
Prober education is the only answer and solution. If all they are tought is how to bark out orders and do pat downs, then I understand how the agent made such a gross mistake.
And never in history has a damn major real plane boarding with a bomb or otherwise ever occurred. We're turning over our civil rights for a completely fictional danger that only serves to frighted the general public into giving up their rights for alleged security. Pah... it's sickening.
On October 11 2012 11:55 MarinePrince wrote: And never in history has a damn major real plane boarding with a bomb or otherwise ever occurred. We're turning over our civil rights for a completely fictional danger that only serves to frighted the general public into giving up their rights for alleged security. Pah... it's sickening.
They could improve the tsa by following the method used in the middle east...one that actually catches terrorists+speeds up pocess...
On October 11 2012 11:55 MarinePrince wrote: And never in history has a damn major real plane boarding with a bomb or otherwise ever occurred. We're turning over our civil rights for a completely fictional danger that only serves to frighted the general public into giving up their rights for alleged security. Pah... it's sickening.
Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi would like to have a word with you.
On October 11 2012 10:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
These are serious accusations. Any proof on this?
The Transportation Security Administration is rolling out expedited screening at big airports called "Precheck." It has special lanes for background-checked travelers, who can keep their shoes, belt and jacket on, leave laptops and liquids in carry-on bags and walk through a metal detector rather than a full-body scan. The process, now at two airlines and nine airports, is much like how screenings worked before the Sept. 11 attacks.
On October 11 2012 10:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
The Transportation Security Administration is rolling out expedited screening at big airports called "Precheck." It has special lanes for background-checked travelers, who can keep their shoes, belt and jacket on, leave laptops and liquids in carry-on bags and walk through a metal detector rather than a full-body scan. The process, now at two airlines and nine airports, is much like how screenings worked before the Sept. 11 attacks.
I think you make it out to be a bigger problem then it is. Firstly the video said it was only 1 outta 10 which is pretty good ratio. I think the post office have bigger problems with thieves.
I thought they were going to uncover that there have been stealing going on at every airport or at least 80% of them, which isnt the case. Name me one job position where there hasnt been any thieving going on? Secondly you first made it sound like every agent have been bribed, which you didnt provide proof for. I mean, unless its a 6 outta 10 agents are being bribed its not a big deal. Again you put them all in one pot and say they are all theives.
Its like saying the hundreds of cases where police abuse power is enough evidence to suggest we are better without them.
And lastly I dont see the problem with the pre check feature. I can only picture that when they are pre checked they seach for mental health history etc etc. As long as the safety meassures are taken care of then I have nothing against it.
On October 11 2012 11:28 Shin_Gouki wrote: The more I read about the TSA, the more I wish we Americans would attempt to put a stop to it. I don't believe the TSA has even caught a terrorist (I could be wrong) and they're the most abusive and rude organization I've ever seen. This is beyond wrong, I feel so bad for her. I hope this can at least push people to create regulations against the TSA.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
These words by Benjamin Franklin seem highly relevant.
Key word: "Temporary." This situation seems like more of a permanent increase in safety.
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
So this is something I've always wondered. In the US, there is a constant state of low fear that terrorists or even just some crazy dude will come and blow up a plane or something, which is supposed to be the justification for the TSA, Patriot Act, and all that. Obviously, much of this is fabricated by politicians as a means of maintaining the status quo and their incumbency by using fear as a voter motivation, and allowing them to beef up security measures to pretend like they are doing something important. I recognize that in general, Americans probably are more afraid of potential attacks than the actual threat would deserve.
However, I do feel like because it is the US, and because of its image and stature in the world, it [i]is[i] more likely to attacked by some fanatical individual or group than, say, the Czech Republic. I think it is not unreasonable or arrogant to put forth the claim that America probably faces a larger risk of potential attack than other Western countries. However, I'm just not sure how much of a legitimate threat there is, and whether the risk of an attack is great enough to warrant all the breaches of privacy increased security bring along. If the US were really in as much danger as politicians would like us to believe, then hell, we need even more surveillance of airports and passengers coming into the states. But obviously that isn't the case, so with a lesser degree of threat, there is a lesser degree of security needed. The question in my mind is how much is needed.
America is at more risk of being attacked because we are bullies. We take shits in other people's front yards and force feed it to the residents. America is an aggressive war machine with no integrity. We post military bases all over the world and allow no one to post any in our own borders. We are hypocritical. We take beliefs of other people and use that as our toilet paper. America being prominent has nothing to do with it, it's our behavior and attitude towards other nations.
--
Also, pressing the government does nothing. This isn't Iceland. The US doesn't do peaceful rebellion (any substantial pressure from citizens would be labeled as such, imo). If you don't have a truckload of $100 bills, you have no influence. Most voters are uninformed, ignorant, bandwagon riders with no clue about what's really going on.
On October 11 2012 10:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
The Transportation Security Administration is rolling out expedited screening at big airports called "Precheck." It has special lanes for background-checked travelers, who can keep their shoes, belt and jacket on, leave laptops and liquids in carry-on bags and walk through a metal detector rather than a full-body scan. The process, now at two airlines and nine airports, is much like how screenings worked before the Sept. 11 attacks.
This is an isolated case and not a blanket systemic failure. It is one or a few men in the TSA who do corrupt practices. It does not prove anything against the system in general, which to my belief is necessary. There will be a few discords here and there, and we should handle them swiftly and to the full extent of the law. Unless this corrupt practices become epidemic, they should be treated as such.
On October 11 2012 10:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
The Transportation Security Administration is rolling out expedited screening at big airports called "Precheck." It has special lanes for background-checked travelers, who can keep their shoes, belt and jacket on, leave laptops and liquids in carry-on bags and walk through a metal detector rather than a full-body scan. The process, now at two airlines and nine airports, is much like how screenings worked before the Sept. 11 attacks.
This is an isolated case and not a blanket systemic failure. It is one or a few men in the TSA who do corrupt practices. It does not prove anything against the system in general, which to my belief is necessary. There will be a few discords here and there, and we should handle them swiftly and to the full extent of the law. Unless this corrupt practices become epidemic, they should be treated as such.
Did you watch the video? 381 officers fired for theft.
On October 11 2012 10:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
The Transportation Security Administration is rolling out expedited screening at big airports called "Precheck." It has special lanes for background-checked travelers, who can keep their shoes, belt and jacket on, leave laptops and liquids in carry-on bags and walk through a metal detector rather than a full-body scan. The process, now at two airlines and nine airports, is much like how screenings worked before the Sept. 11 attacks.
On October 11 2012 10:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
The Transportation Security Administration is rolling out expedited screening at big airports called "Precheck." It has special lanes for background-checked travelers, who can keep their shoes, belt and jacket on, leave laptops and liquids in carry-on bags and walk through a metal detector rather than a full-body scan. The process, now at two airlines and nine airports, is much like how screenings worked before the Sept. 11 attacks.
This is an isolated case and not a blanket systemic failure. It is one or a few men in the TSA who do corrupt practices. It does not prove anything against the system in general, which to my belief is necessary. There will be a few discords here and there, and we should handle them swiftly and to the full extent of the law. Unless this corrupt practices become epidemic, they should be treated as such.
Did you watch the video? 381 officers fired for theft.
Obviously isolated insidents. No need to worry!
And someone said 1 in 10 is a good ratio. How is that a good ratio? 10% of all TSA workers doing something shady is a good thing? So 10% of all waiters will give you a fake bill and charge your card $100 in tips? Is that a good thing? What about if 10% of police officers stole your car? That's hilarious if you think 1 in 10 is a good ratio.
On October 10 2012 17:30 opisska wrote: So far there are not too many americans in the thread, but as you guys come, you should really appreciate how this is your collective fault. Nothing exists on its own, even the mighty TSA has been created and appointed by your government, that you elected and you did not pressure it enough to put things straight (also because you keep buying the "we must protect you from terrorists" stories). So if you are an American and you are outraged, don't even think about bitching on the internet if you haven't already written to your congresman!
After a couple of visists, I still think that the US is quite a cool (even though very sifficult to grasp) country. But this TSA crap, which every visitor must come in contact with, is really ruining the image.
On October 11 2012 10:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The TSA does not protect Americans, this has been proven time and time again. Heck TSA agents have been caught being bribed, stealing and the fact you can pay a fee to somehow skip the procedure? I mean really?
The Transportation Security Administration is rolling out expedited screening at big airports called "Precheck." It has special lanes for background-checked travelers, who can keep their shoes, belt and jacket on, leave laptops and liquids in carry-on bags and walk through a metal detector rather than a full-body scan. The process, now at two airlines and nine airports, is much like how screenings worked before the Sept. 11 attacks.
This is an isolated case and not a blanket systemic failure. It is one or a few men in the TSA who do corrupt practices. It does not prove anything against the system in general, which to my belief is necessary. There will be a few discords here and there, and we should handle them swiftly and to the full extent of the law. Unless this corrupt practices become epidemic, they should be treated as such.
Did you watch the video? 381 officers fired for theft.
Obviously isolated insidents. No need to worry!
And someone said 1 in 10 is a good ratio. How is that a good ratio? 10% of all TSA workers doing something shady is a good thing? So 10% of all waiters will give you a fake bill and charge your card $100 in tips? Is that a good thing? What about if 10% of police officers stole your car? That's hilarious if you think 1 in 10 is a good ratio.
1 in 10 locations. there is more than 1 employee at each location.
On October 10 2012 18:09 DannyJ wrote: I don't see what this has to do with the TSA freaking out about terrorism. They just handled it wrong and should have been more discrete about it if she asked them to. The whole breaking her saline bags and crap who knows what's true since they both have a different story. I can imagine either of them lying...
This woman would always have been checked out a little bit in any airport on earth for drug reasons, long before the terrorism bullshit. This story is basically about a woman being "embarrassed". "I thought that was a little rude," she said. Hard to quantify how much i should care about this.
Pretty much this.
If you read the article “I asked them if they thought that was an appropriate location, and they told me that everything was fine".
That quote doesn't say anything about requesting a private room. She simply asked if it was appropriate to do it there and they said yes, and he was embarrassed but she didn't speak up for herself. Maybe if she refused being patted down until they went to a private room then she would of got her way, but if you gonna sit there and comply then complain later how you were embarrassed well it's your fault for letting that situation happen.
“I didn’t want to start getting upset and swearing and causing more of a scene or issue,”
She was completely passive about the whole incident.
Exactly my thoughts. It's not clear from the article whether she asked for a private room.
Perhaps we can change the title of this thread to "Terminally Ill" instead of "Dying"? When I came into this thread I thought she was literally dying as they searched her.
Sigh, it's kind of sad that one idiotic group makes the whole system seem terrible like really, do you guys think a suicide bomber wouldn't try to hide bombs in fake medicine? they need to check it, just disappointed that they denied private search (which they're required to provide iirc)
edit: what this guy said as well
On October 11 2012 14:15 Shai wrote: Perhaps we can change the title of this thread to "Terminally Ill" instead of "Dying"? When I came into this thread I thought she was literally dying as they searched her.
This thread is quite interesting, not so much for the original story, but for the responses. There are several groups of pepole with clealrly tangential thought processes, so I don't really think that there will be much "discussion", but this phenomena is interesting on its own.
I even got three PMs (I almost never get any) and are both in the "america is in danger" and "we poor voters can't change anything" camps. I am particularly amused by the second point, which has been repeated in many posts in the thread. You really do believe that you can change nothing? So who are the people that can? How did it happen that they can and you can't? Hell even if it is all about money, then get rich and bribe the goverment to do good things fot the people!
I hear this "it's politics, not people, can't do nothing" repeated over and over again. There was even a stupid survey that found out that the "desperation from the political situation" is the second most important cause of clinical depression in Czech Republic. I call it a good excuse for your own inaction!
Excesses are everywhere. When I went through the detector at the airport yesterday since I lost weight recently I had the hands in my pockets cause otherwise my pants would fall down. The guy searched me because of that but when I told him the reason he stopped searching and was like "ah ok you can go then".
Anybody here ever opt out from the radiation scanners at the airports? I was lucky we didn't have to go through them when i landed at JFK last year as i was under the impression that was one of the worst airports for the radiation scanners.I hear they are going to make it so rich clients won't need to go through radiation scanners or be pat down and will just go through a metal detector like the old days, anyone else heard about that?