Utopia Talk / Politics / What With The Flap Over

Hot Rod Member	Thu Nov 18 11:59:26 security checks, the pat downs and x-rays vs The Constitutionality involved, I think it is time the authorities started profiling. I recognize that a lot of people will be upset with profiling but let's face it, with the volume of travelers involved it just isn't practical to waste time and resources on 80 year old ladies. What do you think?
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Nov 18 12:01:06 http://i.t...ve/01754/disguise_1754911c.jpg Recently boarded a plane. What now?
Hot Rod Member	Thu Nov 18 12:07:20 A passenger noted that his hands were very young for his apparent age. She tried to tell the flight crew, but they ignored her. I'm not saying do away with vigilance, just that profiling in the huge majority of cases could enhance vigilance.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Nov 18 12:10:43 So we should profile old people with young looking hands? He could have easily disguised his hands too. Then there is the fact that terrorism has nothing to do with race.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Nov 18 12:20:11 What about the 200 million proven terrorists that were born and raised in Iceland?
Dakyron Member	Thu Nov 18 12:49:27 Profiling is even less constitutionally accepted than just searching everyone. Searching based on profiling violates both the equal protection clause *AND* search and seizure, while searching everyone only violates search and seizure. Good to see ole' Roddy deciding the best way to combat unconstitutional searches is by just searching non-whites. This would be funny if 44% of Americans didnt agree with you.
kargen Member	Thu Nov 18 13:32:34 "Searching based on profiling violates both the equal protection clause *AND* search and seizure, while searching everyone only violates search and seizure." And the new regulations in place do neither. It is supposedly a random sampling of passengers. What are they doing, rolling some dice as you go through the metal detector and if they roll a four you get searched? Doesn't sound like a real secure system they have going there. Would explain why when they catch a terorist they say "we got lucky this time" though.
Dakyron Member	Thu Nov 18 13:56:37 "And the new regulations in place do neither." Random forced searching has long been established as unconstitutional. You are only allowed to have your person searched if you are suspected of a crime, or if you consent. There is, of course, implied consent, but IMO, that doesnt apply to publicly funded government run airports. Buying a ticket to a stadium, for instance, as been successfully argued as implied consent(other than in CA, where the state constitution forbids this), but does buying a plane ticket constitute implied consent to be sexually molested by high school dropouts? Flying could be seen as a near neccessity, unlike going to a football game.
so what Member	Thu Nov 18 14:00:02 It's the muslim that are the cause of everything bad, so why these false pretenses that they are just like anybody else. We should oblige muslim to wear visible signs so decent people can easily spot a muslim and be on their guard when dealing with muslim.
Dakyron Member	Thu Nov 18 14:01:16 Just make Muslim only airports, right? With prop planes and no indoor plumbing.
Rugian Member	Thu Nov 18 14:10:57 Dakyron Member Thu Nov 18 14:01:16 Just make Muslim only airports, right? With prop planes and no indoor plumbing. That's unconstitutional. But even though you were joking, it'd be interesting to see if Muslim-only airports that have entirely equal levels of quality compared to regular airports would be allowable under SCOTUS' view of separate but equal.
MrPresident07 Member	Thu Nov 18 14:20:14 I did a brief 10 page paper on profiling-used it for 2 classes. Got an A from both profs.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Nov 18 16:27:09 I'm basing my opinion on logic. Of course anyone can be a terrorist, the IRA and Baader Meinhof proved that long ago. But, in this day and age we are *at war* with radical Muslims. How do you tell the difference between a peaceful Muslim and a radical one? I'm not saying every Muslim should have to undergo a cavity search, but TSA should be able to teach their people to recognize nervous behavior and if the radicals know that they are being profiled they will be more apt to be nervous. What got me thinking about this was an interview with an El Al head of security. When asked how they were able to have never lost an aircraft to terrorism the first words out of his mouth was 'profiling.' Of course they have other methods they use which would not be practical for us such as personal interviews with all of the passengers. The reality of the day is there are certain criteria that TSA should look for and track. Muslims that act nervous, buy one way tickets, and, of course, the watch list and facial recognition software. Even that would not be fool proof, but it would be a start. Perhaps later they can create x-ray machines that will just show a stick figure and the contraband. Till then I think we should profile and stop the intrusive searches of people that do not fit the profile.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Nov 18 16:29:29 *-El Al former head of security.
kargen Member	Thu Nov 18 23:32:52 "Random forced searching has long been established as unconstitutional." Thus my concern with the system in place now. They claim the proccess in deciding who gets the more intense search is random.
jergul Member	Fri Nov 19 03:20:40 "I did a brief 10 page paper on profiling-used it for 2 classes. Got an A from both profs." Are all conservatives dishonest?
jergul Member	Fri Nov 19 03:33:31 "When asked how they were able to have never lost an aircraft to terrorism the first words out of his mouth was 'profiling." El-Al over course insanely overrepresented in terrorist incidents. "On 26 December of the same year, two PFLP members attacked an El Al aircraft at Athens International Airport, killing an Israeli mechanic.[13] The Israeli Defense Forces responded to the incident on 29 December, with a night-time raid on Lebanon's Beirut Airport, destroying 14 planes on the ground" That is actually what you should do. Every time a US plane is attacked, then blow up the airport that the attack initiated in. Does not matter if it is domestic or foreign, the measure will certainly keep security on their toes and is at least as constitutional as the other things you want to do.
jergul Member	Fri Nov 19 03:39:56 "Passengers are asked to report three hours before departure. All El Al terminals around the world are closely monitored for security. There are plain-clothes agents and fully armed police or military personnel who patrol the premises for explosives, suspicious behavior, and other threats. Inside the terminal, passengers and their baggage are checked by a trained team. El Al security procedures require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats. Passengers will be asked questions about where they are coming from, the reason for their trip, their job or occupation, and whether they have packed their bags themselves. The likelihood of potential terrorists remaining calm under such questioning is believed to be low (see microexpression).[38] At the check-in counter, passengers' passports and tickets are closely examined. A ticket without a sticker from the security checkers will not be accepted. At passport control passengers' names are checked against information from the FBI, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Scotland Yard, Shin Bet, and Interpol databases. Luggage is screened and sometimes hand searched. In addition, bags are put through a decompression chamber simulating pressures during flight that could trigger explosives.[39] El Al is the only airline in the world that passes all luggage through such a chamber.[40] Even at overseas airports, El Al security agents conduct all luggage searches personally, even if they are supervised by government or private security firms." There you go Hot Rod. The regime you want. Police State Libertarianism?
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Fri Nov 19 06:31:24 'What about the 200 million proven terrorists that were born and raised in Iceland?' Are you saying that all whites are terrorists?
Hot Rod Member	Fri Nov 19 06:37:19 We go through many of those procedures when we are stopped for a traffic violation. There is nothing there that I see that involves searching the passengers person. An interview is not intrusive. Too bad that procedure is not practical in our country. Or we could do like they did in the movie 'AIRPLANE'. Just sell explosives in the gift shop to anyone with the cash.
Hot Rod Jackson Member	Fri Nov 19 07:03:20 False dichotomy dipshit, there are other options. How fucking stupid can you be?
Hot Rod Member	Fri Nov 19 07:07:22 List them stupid.
Hot Rod Jackson Member	Fri Nov 19 07:10:01 You obviously wouldn't comprehend them anyways. You are after all the same moron who think Glenn Beck stating that Obama has a deep seated hatred of whites but in fact does not hate whites is deep. I doubt you could fully comprehend a Dr Seuss book.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Nov 19 07:20:21 Thought so, you got nothing but a head full of shit instead of brains. Damn you are stupid.
jergul Member	Fri Nov 19 07:26:52 Why limit such procedures to airplanes? Ultimately, you can have free go zones in rural districts, but using any form of self-propelled transportation that can be a threat to population or industrial concentrations would require an El Al type security measure at the very least. There being nothing special about airplanes that cannot transfer to all other types of transportation including walking.
Hot Rod Jackson Member	Fri Nov 19 07:29:55 'Thought so, you got nothing but a head full of shit instead of brains. Damn you are stupid. ' This from the person who thinks the only two possible options are over the top invasive security or downright selling explosives at the air port. How does it feel to be a thrall of Glenn Beck anyways?
jergul Member	Fri Nov 19 07:30:56 I think in urban areas it is best done with road blocks a security checks that non-intrusively interview people and check their standing with domestic and foreign police and security agencies before allowing them the privilege of mobility. Given that a proper vetting can take weeks to months, and appropriate holding period termed security arrests should be implemented at the discretion of the interviewing officer or contractor. See Hot Rod? I am all in for anything that can make you secure.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Nov 19 08:39:26 So what is *YOUR* solution jergul. You know, it seems that every time I post a thread like this and voice my opinion most of you people just attack my position without offering your own. LOL, and then when I post a thread without my opinion most of you people attack me for not posting my opinion. OK, so how would you get maximum security with the minimum of intrusiveness?
Milton Bradley Member	Fri Nov 19 08:41:18 You know, it seems that every time someone posts a thread like this and voice their opinion you just attack their position without offering your own and say their mom fucked all the niggers that ever touched a football. LOL, and then when you post a thread without your opinion all the normal people attack you for not posting your opinion. *Fixed.
jergul Member	Fri Nov 19 08:55:03 Hot Rod How would I balance security with intrusiveness? First of all I would make sure that taking control of the aircraft was impossible for high jackers. I would make airliners liable for criminal acts done on board their aircraft to ensure proper vetting at point of sales where it should occur in the first place. Then I would provide carbon credit for kerosene based co-generation power plants for the 40 odd % efficiency bonus they have compared to jet turbines used for transportation. The assumption here being that the main risk is collateral damage occurring if high jackers gain control of an air craft. And that the main intrusive element is cause by passenger volume. Vetting at point of sales and individual interviews with all passengers regardless of hue or creed acceptable. Particularly when alternate forms of transportation would emerge from exploding kerosene prices.
jergul Member	Fri Nov 19 08:56:21 Its called a holistic perspective btw hotrod.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Nov 19 09:25:40 jergul - First of all I would make sure that taking control of the aircraft was impossible for high jackers. I believe they have done that with steel doors protecting the pilots. jergul - I would make airliners liable for criminal acts done on board their aircraft to ensure proper vetting at point of sales where it should occur in the first place. Such as "At passport control passengers' names are checked against information from the FBI, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Scotland Yard, Shin Bet, and Interpol databases." (Do they really want low level airline employees to have access to those data bases? Sure they could make it where query's only could be made, but when you open that door it becomes easier for hackers to go in and adjust the DB.) And, "that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats. Passengers will be asked questions about where they are coming from, the reason for their trip, their job or occupation, and whether they have packed their bags themselves. The likelihood of potential terrorists remaining calm under such questioning is believed to be low (see microexpression).[38]" jergul - Then I would provide carbon credit for kerosene based co-generation power plants for the 40 odd % efficiency bonus they have compared to jet turbines used for transportation. I'm not a chemist, but I was always under the impression that kerosene and even hi-octane auto fuel could not be used in jet planes. jergul - The assumption here being that the main risk is collateral damage occurring if high jackers gain control of an air craft. Hasn't most of the attempts, if not all, since 9/11 been suicide bombers trying to blow up the plane in flight? The skyrocketing costs of kerosene would be minimal compared to the costs of screening to the Airlines. That alone could put the cost of airline travel out of reach for many travelers. Plus to make the airlines culpable would be unfair. It would be like holding the airlines responsible had the German Spies that reached our shores during WWII succeeded in blowing up an aircraft. Like it or not we are at war with terrorism and it is governments responsibility to protect the American People. Of course we should all be vigilant, but screening is the governments responsibility not the airlines.
jergul Member	Fri Nov 19 12:27:33 Hot Rod Kerosene is what jets use as fuel. The issue is mainly that crude oil is separated into different things - among them kerosene. Kerosene is used mainly for jet fuel - for reasons known only to the invisible hand. The problem is that demand for kerosene is relatively low compared to other crude components, so kerosene is relatively inexpensive. Stupidly inexpensive to a point where you have to think in terms of cartels to get it. So the market needs a little nudge to use kerosene appropriately. Planes being blown up in flight are not a big deal. Turning planes into weapons of mass destruction is a big deal. You might understand if you looked at motor vehicles and saw how many more innocent people die due to illegal activity there than do in the hands of terrorists. So if the goal is to save lives, then of course the criminal terrorist drivers should be hunted with extreme prejudice. You have experience from Iraq in dealing with radical driving elements that you can simply use at home. The wwii comparison would be more if a German spy was allowed to buy an airline ticket and then blew up the plane. Is the airline responsible? Certainly. It should not be letting people with bombs and ill intent on their aircraft. If it does, then is should expect to pay the price in civic and criminal courts. I fail to see why this is a government affair.
jergul Member	Sat Nov 20 03:35:16 hohum cut and run?
Hot Rod Member	Sat Nov 20 07:43:07 I did not know that about kerosene, thanks for the update. While a great many more people die from automobiles, AFAIK, flying is still the safest way to travel, terrorists can do more damage blowing up a plane than ramming into another car. Unless they pull a McVey, but it is hard to accumulate the materials needed for that kind of bomb in this country. And of course, if they can take over a flight the airplane is potentially a much more lethal weapon. As for the German Spies they were, of course, allowed to buy a plane ticket but they didn't. Instead of going about their business they opted to party instead. IIRC. Obviously no sane person is going to 'let' terrorists do anything that will allow them to kill a bunch of innocents. I'm just not sure the airlines can afford to gather the assets necessary to screen everyone. Besides, the airlines responsibility, if any, begins once the individual boards the plane that *they own.* The airports are not owned by the airlines. I believe they are all owned by government, not sure if that applies to all but certainly most. Another argument is air travel is monitored and controlled by The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). e.g.: Air traffic controllers and investigation of crashes. Vetting at point of sale would be of little use. I'm reminded of when I was a teen and we got some adults to buy alcohol for us. Terrorists could easily have someone not in any database buy the ticket and then give it to someone who is and is willing to take out the plane with them on it. If they are going to do any screening it must be done in a secure area just prior to boarding. This would furthur limit the airlines ability to screen as they might have several planes boarding at close to the same time using different gates.
jergul Member	Sat Nov 20 10:24:06 Hot Rod You need to try and understand there is nothing special about aircraft for as long as passengers are unable to seize control. That means that any measure you support to make you safe at airports are identical to any measure to make you safe elsewhere. There is not problem screening traffic in the same way you want to screen passengers to put it that way. Ask yourself if you really want security rings on your streets and random pullovers to scrutinize possible irregularities. Implied consent is a tool of the police state.
river of blood40514 Member	Sun Feb 05 00:33:57 see black cut power better thing has .
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: