Dianne Feinstein says more invasive searches coming

Prince Of Dorkness

hedonist wrote:

So if Iran or some other country run by a delusional fuck wants to take some action against us because the US doesn't think killing gay people is OK...we "kinda deserve it"?

If you are actually expecting me to believe for one second that the reason that we're at war with countries in the middle east was because of their death penalty for gay people, you really must think I'm one dumb Mofo.

riotgrl

Cosmo wrote:

curmudgeoness wrote:

Why not do as Israel does -- hand security over to the military, use actual trained personnel instead of, I'm sorry, people who could not get hired anywhere else. How many experts have said that looking for terrorists at the airport is too little, too late?

...
I agree. The Israel model is tough... but it works... without some lower middle class employee sticking his finger in your ass.
If you can't make to the airport on time... fuck it... you need to quit wasting so much goddamn time on your goddamn travel day and work on your logistics planning.

And Israel does more than just search you before you board the plane. How many peole report bags left alone at the airport? Or in a public place like a mall? The bigger threat may be our public places and someone leaving a bomb in a bag and everybody just walking past it and killing tons of people at the mall or sporting events or concerts. So are you willing to be searched before you enter the mall or go to your next PJ concert? How far do we go in giving up our liberties to feel safe?

inmytree

unsung wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-security-aqapbre84c0a7-20120513,0,7062917.story




Consequently the flying public is going to have to tolerate more invasive searches, she said. "The American public has not been terribly sympathetic" to this, she said, but "it's very important that TSA (the Transportation Security Administration) keeps up its efforts."

her full quote:

FEINSTEIN: For this particular material, candidly no. I can't say that I am. I think the pat-down probably is better than the magnetometer. I think Americans have to understand that this particular kind of explosive, nonmetallic, is not easily detectable and that's one of the reasons why Abdulmutallab wore it in his underway, so that he couldn't patted down sufficiently to detect it.
That's a problem and that's something the TSA has to grapple with. And the American public has not been terribly sympathetic. Although most people are, most travelers say, "I'm going to go with the flow, I recognize the need, therefore, I really don't mind being patted down." I'm in that category, but not everybody is.
So I came from Afghanistan last week along with my colleagues on the intelligence committee through Dubai and there screening was very heavy. Three -- you pass through magnetometers three times, very heavy pat-downs, they opened hand luggage at the gate, they look for gun powder or other things on your hands.
So there was a big pat down with additional security people present. It was very evident.
Having said that, you can't maintain that all of the time. So, I think it's very important that TSA keeps up its efforts and that we Americans who travel a lot understand what's at stake.
And, you know, when you see the number of people on these large planes, you are aware of the fact that this is really necessary to do and particularly right now. I am hopeful that we will be able to candidly kill this bomb maker and kill some of his other associates, because there is a dangerous process in play at the present time


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news- ... z1uwKOsSPm

Jason P

I doubt that the US whacking this guy will make fundamentalists hate the US anymore then they already do. After all, this guy convinced his own brother to stick a bomb where the sun doesn't shine and set it off.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

so do you want to fly and have your safety insured via searches, or do you just want to take your chances without security searches and assume the risk and fly and pray to god that it is not your day to be taken down by a bomber or a hijacker??

you never really struck me as a give up liberty for fear kind of guy.

if you are ok with this, a gov't agency doing "random" searches, why on earth aren't you ok with things like the patriot act, or random stops and searches by the police?

I suppose I have never asked you those specific questions, but I am just assuming based on past posts.

How is it different?

I don't believe in levels of infringements. Once the state crosses the line, the varying levels of how invasive something is doesn't matter to me. they are all wrong to do.

What is more likely, being a victim of a terrorist attack on or becoming a victim of crime in the inner city... Wouldn't that warrant the kind of thing that the NY police are able to do...random stops...hell we should be able to be checked all the time for our safety...I mean...if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about but a little inconvenience right?

airport security should be private. No government agency should have the ability to do random stop and searches.

blackredyellow

curmudgeoness wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

honestly, some people are so desperate for something to whine about.

If you don't like it, take the bus.

The world is now full of terrorists and here in America, we kinda deserve it. You can't take the piss out of the pool so you either gotta soak in it or don't have a swim.

I say search me all you want... I get pulled aside for "random" screening almost every single time I fly because of my appearance. and that's just fine.

But --

1) Searching you is not making me any safer, regardless of whether or not you are okay with it. That energy would be better used to find actual terrorists before they get to the airport.

2) Taking the bus is a stopgap measure. Trains, around here, at least, already get random bag searches. The first time someone decides to blow up a Greyhound bus, "security"policies will be implemented there, also.

Ok, so how do exactly do we do that?

hedonist

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

hedonist wrote:

So if Iran or some other country run by a delusional fuck wants to take some action against us because the US doesn't think killing gay people is OK...we "kinda deserve it"?

If you are actually expecting me to believe for one second that the reason that we're at war with countries in the middle east was because of their death penalty for gay people, you really must think I'm one dumb Mofo.

Of course it's not THE reason, but it is a factor - the view of us as some kind of bacchanalian society.

(and brian, if I could try what you suggested, I would! - even though we avoid flying at all costs nowadays for various reasons - but the era of being able to smoke ANYTHING on a plane are long gone. Gotta say I miss those days)

JonnyPistachio

curmudgeoness wrote:

As if we could not see this coming a mile away.

I suspect both the original story and the follow-up about the secret double-agent contain large amounts of bs. But the perceived threat -- real or not -- opens the door for "random" strip-searches of airline passengers. I can only hope that such a move will kill domestic airline travel.

Remind me -- how many terrorists have the crack TSA agents stopped? Oh, right....

Who stopped the underwear bomber? What about the shoe bomber?

Our security policy seems to be based on the "closing the barn door after the horse gets out" approach; maybe that fills you with confidence, but it is not inspiring me. Patdowns, scanners, taking off shoes -- this is security theater; it is not making you safer, it just makes you feel safe. Is it worth giving up rights and privacy for the illusion of safety??

Why not do as Israel does -- hand security over to the military, use actual trained personnel instead of, I'm sorry, people who could not get hired anywhere else. How many experts have said that looking for terrorists at the airport is too little, too late?

I find the focus on air travel rather peculiar, frankly. Do we really believe that terrorists are obsessed with blowing up airplanes? Wouldn't these scary new bombs work just as well anywhere? Are we going to consent to random strip searches to take the subway, go to a football game, enter a shopping mall? Where do we draw the line, where do the absurdities of such policies become impossible to overlook?

As for Dianne Feinstein, it is easy for her to posture and talk tough; she never will be subjected to TSA's "security" measures. :roll:

I disagree that its only there to make us 'feel safer.' well, maybe to a degree.
The problem is, we cannot see the results or even speculate as to how many people we've prevented from bringing bombs, firearms, knives, or boxcutters on board since 9/11. Potential terrorists simply know that they wont get far, so they don't try very often.

I think focusing on air travel is a very good target for terrorist. It makes perfect sense:
--People are already on edge about flying, aside from terrorist threats.
--Diversity at airports makes it easy for anyone to blend in.
--Air travel is used for business and pleasure, and it could cripple many industries if safety was to suffer. its a HUGE industry that affects many others.
--Humongous explosions add to the wow-factor.
--Many options for hiding explosives or other devices.

I'm surprised there havent been cell phone bombs or laptop bombs. I think airport security is going to have to get worse one day.
--Used as missiles against targets.

josevolution

unsung wrote:

josevolution wrote:

I'm willing to be stripped searched for every flight i take as long as i get to my destination in one piece ....

All hope is truly lost with attitudes like this.

What are you talking about i'm willing to wait as long as it takes for Security to do it's job so the flight i'm on is secure , what is wrong with that :roll: ....

mikepegg44

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I disagree that its only there to make us 'feel safer.' well, maybe to a degree.
The problem is, we cannot see the results or even speculate as to how many people we've prevented from bringing bombs, firearms, knives, or boxcutters on board since 9/11. Potential terrorists simply know that they wont get far, so they don't try very often.

I think focusing on air travel is a very good target for terrorist. It makes perfect sense:
--People are already on edge about flying, aside from terrorist threats.
--Diversity at airports makes it easy for anyone to blend in.
--Air travel is used for business and pleasure, and it could cripple many industries if safety was to suffer. its a HUGE industry that affects many others.
--Humongous explosions add to the wow-factor.
--Many options for hiding explosives or other devices.

I'm surprised there havent been cell phone bombs or laptop bombs. I think airport security is going to have to get worse one day.
--Used as missiles against targets.

How many 9/11's were there prior to that day in september?
No matter what, the terrorists will make whatever they want happen in the end. they are relentless. the more we take our civil liberties and throw them out the window the more they have already succeeded. Osama wanted to change our way of life...he succeeded like no other. What we should put our focus on isn't bombs in airports...it is WHY someone would want to put a bomb in an airport to begin with...increased TSA security actions is like treating anemia with red bull.

Until we stay at home and quit trying to dictate to other countries what they should and should not do we will have people who want to attack the US...it isn't our freedom they hate, it is when we try to force our freedom on them that they have a problem with it...

why is the TSA (a gov't agency) doing "random" searches in an airport any different than the FBI doing random enhanced pat downs on pedestrians in high crime areas?

JonnyPistachio

mikepegg44 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I disagree that its only there to make us 'feel safer.' well, maybe to a degree.
The problem is, we cannot see the results or even speculate as to how many people we've prevented from bringing bombs, firearms, knives, or boxcutters on board since 9/11. Potential terrorists simply know that they wont get far, so they don't try very often.

I think focusing on air travel is a very good target for terrorist. It makes perfect sense:
--People are already on edge about flying, aside from terrorist threats.
--Diversity at airports makes it easy for anyone to blend in.
--Air travel is used for business and pleasure, and it could cripple many industries if safety was to suffer. its a HUGE industry that affects many others.
--Humongous explosions add to the wow-factor.
--Many options for hiding explosives or other devices.

I'm surprised there havent been cell phone bombs or laptop bombs. I think airport security is going to have to get worse one day.
--Used as missiles against targets.

How many 9/11's were there prior to that day in september?
No matter what, the terrorists will make whatever they want happen in the end. they are relentless. the more we take our civil liberties and throw them out the window the more they have already succeeded. Osama wanted to change our way of life...he succeeded like no other. What we should put our focus on isn't bombs in airports...it is WHY someone would want to put a bomb in an airport to begin with...increased TSA security actions is like treating anemia with red bull.

Until we stay at home and quit trying to dictate to other countries what they should and should not do we will have people who want to attack the US...it isn't our freedom they hate, it is when we try to force our freedom on them that they have a problem with it...

why is the TSA (a gov't agency) doing "random" searches in an airport any different than the FBI doing random enhanced pat downs on pedestrians in high crime areas?

I just see it as a prerequisite to riding an airplane. I am forced to buy automobile insurance for mine and others safety -- I dont like it, but its a prerequisite. I just don't feel like my civil liberties are at stake by more stringent TSA security.

I completely agree with your point of getting to the root of the problem is key. Excellent point Mike. Our foreign policy is getting us in trouble in a lot of places. But until we get there, we're stuck with TSA, and I don't see a problem with it.

comparing TSA's random searches to FBI random searches on the street in high crime areas isnt a good analogy because TSA is doing a job that allows you to use a service. Walking down the street in a high crime area is not a prerequisite for a provided service.

mikepegg44

JonnyPistachio wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I disagree that its only there to make us 'feel safer.' well, maybe to a degree.
The problem is, we cannot see the results or even speculate as to how many people we've prevented from bringing bombs, firearms, knives, or boxcutters on board since 9/11. Potential terrorists simply know that they wont get far, so they don't try very often.

I think focusing on air travel is a very good target for terrorist. It makes perfect sense:
--People are already on edge about flying, aside from terrorist threats.
--Diversity at airports makes it easy for anyone to blend in.
--Air travel is used for business and pleasure, and it could cripple many industries if safety was to suffer. its a HUGE industry that affects many others.
--Humongous explosions add to the wow-factor.
--Many options for hiding explosives or other devices.

I'm surprised there havent been cell phone bombs or laptop bombs. I think airport security is going to have to get worse one day.
--Used as missiles against targets.

How many 9/11's were there prior to that day in september?
No matter what, the terrorists will make whatever they want happen in the end. they are relentless. the more we take our civil liberties and throw them out the window the more they have already succeeded. Osama wanted to change our way of life...he succeeded like no other. What we should put our focus on isn't bombs in airports...it is WHY someone would want to put a bomb in an airport to begin with...increased TSA security actions is like treating anemia with red bull.

Until we stay at home and quit trying to dictate to other countries what they should and should not do we will have people who want to attack the US...it isn't our freedom they hate, it is when we try to force our freedom on them that they have a problem with it...

why is the TSA (a gov't agency) doing "random" searches in an airport any different than the FBI doing random enhanced pat downs on pedestrians in high crime areas?

I just see it as a prerequisite to riding an airplane. I am forced to buy automobile insurance for mine and others safety -- I dont like it, but its a prerequisite. I just don't feel like my civil liberties are at stake by more stringent TSA security.

I completely agree with your point of getting to the root of the problem is key. Excellent point Mike. Our foreign policy is getting us in trouble in a lot of places. But until we get there, we're stuck with TSA, and I don't see a problem with it.

comparing TSA's random searches to FBI random searches on the street in high crime areas isnt a good analogy because TSA is doing a job that allows you to use a service. Walking down the street in a high crime area is not a prerequisite for a provided service.

the only thing that binds the two is that they are gov't agencies. The type of security needed at airports can be provided by private security. A gov't agency should not be granted the ability to perform random searches. The whole discussion centers around what is considered a reasonable search. I don't think what the TSA do at airports constitutes a reasonable search. They basically assume everyone is guilty...there is nothing stopping other agencies from using that rationale in the streets. see NYC stop and frisk. What happens when the TSA wants to begin background checks on all fliers prior to boarding?
like I said...I don't believe in levels of infringement...when you infringe on a right a little, it is the same thing to me as doing it egregiously...I choose not to fly now simply because I believe what they do to passengers is wrong. That is my choice and I have made it.