Airport Screening Abuse Growing

[donner]

As another poster noted would there even have been a 9/11 if passengers had been armed?

The problem with this is that all the passengers could have been equally armed. It's not like the TSA disarmed everyone but the terrorists.

The terrorists had knives, box cutters etc and the other passengers could have had knives, box cutters etc since none of those items were banned at the time. I'm willing to bet that at least one person on each of those planes was also 'armed' in the same sense as we say the terrorists were armed.

You can say, well if a passenger had had a gun it would have been different. Maybe so, but if a passenger could have had a gun then so could a terrorist (since they all boarded as passengers).

The difference came down to what those people chose to do at that moment and its the same now as it was then. In that moment, will passengers standup to the terrorists or wont they.

 

[RidgeHunter]

I see airports as being slightly different because you know ahead of time that you are subject to screening. If you still want to proceed to your flight you have to submit to the screening. If you don't want to submit to the screening then you can turn around and leave with no penalty other than not being allowed onto a private transport. It may be inconvenient, but you can find an alternative route flying.

I'm telling you ahead of time that if you drive a vehicle on public roads enough there is a very good chance you will go through a checkpoint.

The ones around here are also advertised on the news and in the paper when/where they will be.

It may be inconvenient, but you can avoid these checkpoints 100% of the time.

There's your advanced warning, now what's the difference?

I am perfectly willing to accept similar screenings because I am understand that i have a choice in such matters. If my bank wanted to require me to submit to a full body scan then i'd find another bank. If all banks required it then i'd have to decide if i wanted to change my views or not do business with banks.

What if the bank didn't require it, the government did? And what if instead of your bank, it was all businesses that may have more than 15 people in them at any given time?

Perfectly willing to accept that? Really?

So far no one has made any compelling argument why you MUST go through airport security.

Why must you go through a DUI checkpoint?

However, i'd have strong objections to the government installing scanners in say a courthouse or other public building that i might be required to visit.

When I had jury duty, they ran me through a metal detector, made me empty my pockets and take off my belt, searched my belongings I carried, and made me lift my shirt. Every time you entered.

 

[donner]

I'm telling you ahead of time that if you drive a vehicle on public roads enough there is a very good chance you go through a checkpoint.

The one around here are also advertised on the news when/where they will be.

It may be inconvenient, but you can avoid these checkpoints 100% of the time.

There's your advanced warning, now what's the difference?

Not all checkpoints are advertised. They may say they are doing them, but not when and where. You know 100% of the time that you'll get checked at an airport to some extent.

What if the bank didn't require it, the government did? And what if instead of your bank, it was all businesses that may have more than 15 people in them at any given time.

Perfectly willing to accept that? Really?

Then i'd first ask to government to show why it should happen. I think we can all agree that the government has a better than average reason to care about airline security, can't we? Again, how is someone going to fly a bank into another building? Airplanes are different and should be treated as such.

Why must you go through a DUI checkpoint?

Because, at least around here, they tend to be at the end of an off-ramp usually, which means you can't turn around and you only know about them when you get to one. Once there you can't refuse without penalty. You can refuse to be scanned and patted down at an airport and the only thing that happens is that you are removed from the premises.

When I had jury duty, they ran me through a metal detector, made me empty my pockets and take off my belt, searched my belongings I carried, and made me lift my shirt. Every time you entered.

And that makes perfect sense. You were required to enter the courthouse for jury duty, were you not? There would have been a penalty had you failed to comply. I'd have a problem with them employing a full body scanner in such an instance since i'd have no choice but to enter that facility or face a legal penalty. Jury duty= no choice. Entering an airport = choice.

 

[Super Dave]

Jury duty... good call. There is no choice there. I don't know. The bottom line is we are screwed either way!

 

[RidgeHunter]

Not all checkpoints are advertised. They may say they are doing them, but not when and where. You know 100% of the time that you'll get checked at an airport to some extent.

You are aware DUI checkpoints exist, therefore you know in advance you might encounter a checkpoint if you choose to drive a vehicle on public roads.

Then i'd first ask to government to show why it should happen. I think we can all agree that the government has a better than average reason to care about airline security, can't we? Again, how is someone going to fly a bank into another building? Airplanes are different and should be treated as such.

Now we are getting somewhere. It's a justified exception....to you.

Someone could easily make the case that there is potential for mass murder in any crowded private business. A mass murder/terrorist attack would be detrimental to the country.
There's your justification.

DUI checkpoints are a justified 4th amendment exception to the Supreme Court and a good number of the general public.

Because, at least around here, they tend to be at the end of an off-ramp usually, which means you can't turn around and you only know about them when you get to one. Once there you can't refuse without penalty. You can refuse to be scanned and patted down at an airport and the only thing that happens is that you are removed from the premises.

Is the government requiring you to drive an automobile, or even travel on a public road?

And that makes perfect sense. You were required to enter the courthouse for jury duty, were you not? There would have been a penalty had you failed to comply. I'd have a problem with them employing a full body scanner in such an instance since i'd have no choice but to enter that facility or face a legal penalty. Jury duty= no choice. Entering an airport = choice.

Pardon me, but did you not type this?

However, i'd have strong objections to the government installing scanners in say a courthouse or other public building that i might be required to visit.

I got lost somewhere.

 

[cjjtulsa]

Yes, armed citizens would have made a difference on 9/11, but not against the shoe bomber or underwear bomber (which both could have brought down the planes had things worked).

And likely so would a stray bullet through the skin of a pressurized aircraft cabin (providing we're talking about firearmed citizens). People have no damned business with a firearm on ANY flight, period. The idea that some jihadist with a pair of nail clippers could hijack a flight is so beyond stupid it's mindboggling. Pull those b*tches yelling "Allah Akbar", and see how fast and how far up his a** they get shoved before the plane even starts it's final approach.

The only reason 9/11 worked so well is because hijackings up until that point were for money, transport to somewhere else, etc., and people were rarely hurt. Pull a boxcutter now and see if you don't get piled on and beat to a pulp....I guarantee it. We now know that hijackings are more than likely to kill people and use the plane as a weapon, so a deep wound with several stitches is a nice trade for being part of a flying bomb. I think outside of explosives, TSA and our government needs to ease up a bit.

 

[poopgiggle]

At some point I'm going to refuse the body scan and get a pat down, BUT (and I'm not sure how I would arrange this) I'm going to have a giant hard-on.

If it's going to be uncomfortable for me, I'm going to make it even more uncomfortable for you.

 

[grizzly97]

At some point I'm going to refuse the body scan and get a pat down, BUT (and I'm not sure how I would arrange this) I'm going to have a giant hard-on.

If it's going to be uncomfortable for me, I'm going to make it even more uncomfortable for you.

 

[HMFIC]

That gurl haz a pistol in her booty.

you have no idea...

 

[donner]

You are aware DUI checkpoints exist, therefore you know in advance you might encounter a checkpoint.

There is a big difference between knowing you could get stopped and knowing you will get scanned. As i've said, i only disagree with that it could happen, it's that it could happen based on picking road A and not road B. With airport screening, there is no A or B, you know you will get searched.

Now we are getting somewhere. It's a justified exception....to you.

Someone could easily make the case that there is potential for mass murder in any crowded private business. A mass murder/terrorist attack would be detrimental to the country.
There's your justification.

Just like airports are not a justified exception to you? There will always be people who object to any form of search. I personally feel that the government has shown a need for added security in a way that hasn't happened yet for restaurants or other businesses. If the government wants to put scanners in those places then it'd have to show me why it was needed, as it stands now, it hasn't. And again, you 15 person example creates a situation where it's almost unavoidable, which is why i'm saying the government would have to show a need above and beyond. In the case of airlines, the government doesn't really have to struggle to show how an airplane is a threat to more than just those onboard. A bank, restaurant or other place would be difficult to show the same danger.

DUI checkpoints are a justified 4th amendment exception to the Supreme Court and a good number of the general public.

And i bet, if challenged, so would airport security. As i've already stated, i know i'm not 100 percent clear on all of this. I may not articulate it well, but to me, there are subtle but important differences between these two situations. The courts may not see it that way and i'd just have to live with it. I'm fine with the contradiction and i know i'm not the only one who had contradicting viewpoints on this issue (even if it's the reverse of what i'm arguing).

Is the government requiring you to drive an automobile, or even travel on a public road?

Absolutely not, but once i start traveling on that public road i can be compelled to give evidence against myself or refuse and be in legal trouble. I have no problem with officers pulling over someone they suspect of DUI.

At no point during the airport screening process are you forbidden to decline and at no point will you face penalty for declining a scan.

I got lost somewhere

Do you agree that there are buildings you are required to enter or face a legal penalty? Such as attending jury duty? If called to jury duty i can't avoid the security check. The government is literally compelling me to submit to a search. If i refuse and am denied entry then i could face a legal penalty for not being allowed in. That is where i draw the line. I can avoid scanners at airports by not flying. If i have to be in court and there is a scanner then i'm stuck. Either i go through the scanner or i refuse and if i refuse i'd be subjecting myself to a penalty above and beyond merely not being allowed in.