End of debate: President says we must comply

Let'sgoflying!

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
20,931
Location
west Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Taylor
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/20/obama.tsa/index.html

This is not a political topic so it doesn't need to go to spin zone.

The topic is an extension of exisiting ones on the TSA's recent changes, this one happens to be about how those in leadership roles have reacted.

Frankly I don't understand why President Obama felt it necessary to even step into it.
 
More proof that you people elected a moron.
 
Pleased to see that Sec. State Clinton has a somewhat different view:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she would not submit to a pat-down, one of the new "enhanced" measures instituted by the Transportation Safety Administration ahead of the holiday season to screen airline passengers.

"Not if I could avoid it. No, I mean, who would?" Clinton said during an interview aired on Sunday's "Face the Nation."
Click to expand...
 
alaskaflyer said:
Is that what he said? That you must comply?
Click to expand...
No he did not exactly say that. But he did talk to the security experts and state that this was the only solution they had and for the time being suck it up.

But really, you ask the guys that just in the new policies and ask them "Are they really needed" do you really expect to hear, "Aw shucks naw, we don't really need those pat down, feel up the citizenry. We just thought it would be fun" ???

He is asking the guys who will say "of course we need this, Capt. Hindsight told us if we had this we would have stopped people last year"
 
And is it the "end of debate"? I didn't read that in the President's comments, did you?

""Every week I meet with my counterterrorism team and I'm constantly asking them whether -- is what we're doing absolutely necessary? Have we thought it through? Are there other ways of accomplishing it that meet the same objectives?" he said."
 
Apparently our elected officials believe, yet again, "it's for YOUR good, but WE are exempt" - referencing the multitude google hits on "John Boehner TSA Airport Security"
 
gkainz said:
Apparently our elected officials believe, yet again, "it's for YOUR good, but WE are exempt" - referencing the multitude google hits on "John Boehner TSA Airport Security"
Click to expand...

Personally I think this is the least of our troubles and distracts from the real issues. Does he represent a security risk on board? Pilots? FAs? Let them through.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Personally I think this is the least of our troubles and distracts from the real issues. Does he represent a security risk on board? Pilots? FAs? Let them through.
Click to expand...
Agreed somewhat - he/they probably does NOT represent a security risk. Neither do flight crew. However, do the current screening processes reduce the security risk? and risk of what?

However, if "what's good for the goose" were truly in place, those that pass the laws must be also subjected to those same laws. Things would change.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Personally I think this is the least of our troubles and distracts from the real issues. Does he represent a security risk on board? Pilots? FAs? Let them through.
Click to expand...

Neither do 99.9999334% of everyone else.
 
EdFred said:
Neither do 99.9999334% of everyone else.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. Even CPB recognizes that many travelers represent very low risk - and the agency offers the Global Entry, NEXUS and SENTRI programs to those travelers.
 
wsuffa said:
Agree 100%. Even CPB recognizes that many travelers represent very low risk - and the agency offers the Global Entry, NEXUS and SENTRI programs to those travelers.
Click to expand...

Note that those programs are impractically expensive for 99% of those travelers who are not a threat...

So how much have we spent and continue to spend in terms of time and money on all the wonderful and failed security theater? Isn't it time to take a different tactic?
 
Clark1961 said:
Note that those programs are impractically expensive for 99% of those travelers who are not a threat...
Click to expand...

If you travel a lot, those programs are a drop in the bucket. Global Entry (the CPB program) is $100 for 5 years. A passport is more expensive than that....

But even assuming that it's too expensive, I would submit that the government could offer the programs for free and save that much money per traveler in reduced costs and delays at the checkpoint. At $100-per you can cover 1000 travelers by saving just a single checkpoint screener FTE.

So how much have we spent and continue to spend in terms of time and money on all the wonderful and failed security theater? Isn't it time to take a different tactic?
Click to expand...

Oh, we agree completely on that. I'm just pointing out that the agency has even steadfastly refused to adopt a trusted-traveler program when doing so can save immense amounts of money and aggravation with no difference in overall "security" of the system.
 
wsuffa said:
If you travel a lot, those programs are a drop in the bucket. Global Entry (the CPB program) is $100 for 5 years. A passport is more expensive than that....

But even assuming that it's too expensive, I would submit that the government could offer the programs for free and save that much money per traveler in reduced costs and delays at the checkpoint. At $100-per you can cover 1000 travelers by saving just a single checkpoint screener FTE....
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, Bill, but this would not serve the true purpose of national government - to sustain and grow the bureaucrat class.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/20/obama.tsa/index.html
Click to expand...

Just a clarification: if you read the linked article, it does not say that this ends the debate, but that the debate continues to rage on, even at the highest levels, and is re-visited weekly. In particular, the closing quote from President Obama:
President Obama said:
Every week I meet with my counterterrorism team and I'm constantly asking them whether -- is what we're doing absolutely necessary? Have we thought it through? Are there other ways of accomplishing it that meet the same objectives?
Click to expand...

Chris
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Well, we have profiling.
Oh! I take that back right there! I did not mean to say that!
Bad boy, bad boy!
Click to expand...
When it comes to profiling all I have to say is Jihad Jane. She did not meet the profile of the young male Muslim and that is exactly what happens when you profile, they just get someone outside of the profile to do the deed.

But the overreaction that we have seen from 911 is always a reaction never a pro-action. The agency itself was established with the impossible goals of making air travel safe and we all know that will never happen. Even if the TSA were able to stop all bad people and weapons from getting through the bad guys would just instead attack the security lines themselves. A great place to have a few suicide bombers would be a TSA line and detonate before they get to the detection machine. That type of stuff has already occurred at airports. There is nothing to stop it. What would the reaction be? Searches before you can get to the search areas?
 
ScottM said:
<SNIP> A great place to have a few suicide bombers would be a TSA line and detonate before they get to the detection machine. That type of stuff has already occurred at airports. There is nothing to stop it. <SNIP>
Click to expand...
Scott- where has this happened?
 
I think the thing to remember is that these terrorist are expecting to die when they commit their crimes. They are not afraid of armed guards nor of armed civilians. They fully expect to be able to surprise a few people, do the mainly psychological damage to the population and maybe kill a few people. That is more than enough to cause a reaction that will cause further damage to the society they are attacking.

We say that the terrorists have won. Has anyone really thought about that? I ask because to answer that one has to ask what were their goals. When OBL attacked the US on 911 he had hoped to start a holy war with the US, damage our financial institutions and bring down the freedoms of the American people. To that I have to say, check, check and check he won. To keep the war against running all that needs to be done is a few bombings, maybe a mass shooting at an airport security line and the whole thing will fall apart. Freedom to move about the country will end. Read the mandate of the TSA. They are focusing on airlines now but there is nothing to stop them from doing this on railroads or even highways when you enter a city.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/20/obama.tsa/index.html

This is not a political topic so it doesn't need to go to spin zone.

The topic is an extension of exisiting ones on the TSA's recent changes, this one happens to be about how those in leadership roles have reacted.

Frankly I don't understand why President Obama felt it necessary to even step into it.
Click to expand...

As I see it, he's got to support his people. That's being a good boss, no matter what anyone thinks.
 
wsuffa said:
Agree 100%. Even CPB recognizes that many travelers represent very low risk - and the agency offers the Global Entry, NEXUS and SENTRI programs to those travelers.
Click to expand...

And what really amazes me is that people with various types of DOD & DOE security clearances ("those types of tickets") who go thru drug & lie detector tests at any time, who've gone thru months of background checks (including relatives, friends, neighbors and others) and have probably gone thru a more rigorous check than anyone and everyone in TSA, are still subject to all this theatre.
 
murphey said:
As I see it, he's got to support his people. That's being a good boss, no matter what anyone thinks.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but then I think we should expect him to hire or appoint people worth supporting.
 
I am fairly confident Hitler gave full support to his secret service, as well.

In for a penny, in for a pound.
 
SCCutler said:
I am fairly confident Hitler gave full support to his secret service, as well.

In for a penny, in for a pound.
Click to expand...

Spike, I almost universally respect and agree with your opinions, but I'm just not sure a comparison can be made between airport security and something like Kristallnacht.

I mean, is there any comparison between (granted, the girl is far too happy):

Camp_ArbeitMachtFrei.JPG


and



http://photos.denverpost.com/mediacenter/2010/11/dia-pat-downs-and-body-scans/#12
 
Last edited:
SCCutler said:
I am fairly confident Hitler gave full support to his secret service, as well.

In for a penny, in for a pound.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Yes, and I'm also fairly sure the majority of the population just went along with it out of ignorance and apathy. Not saying that this is even close to having the same magnitude, but the principle is very similar :(
 
ScottM said:
I think the thing to remember is that these terrorist are expecting to die when they commit their crimes. They are not afraid of armed guards nor of armed civilians. They fully expect to be able to surprise a few people, do the mainly psychological damage to the population and maybe kill a few people. That is more than enough to cause a reaction that will cause further damage to the society they are attacking.

We say that the terrorists have won. Has anyone really thought about that? I ask because to answer that one has to ask what were their goals. When OBL attacked the US on 911 he had hoped to start a holy war with the US, damage our financial institutions and bring down the freedoms of the American people. To that I have to say, check, check and check he won. To keep the war against running all that needs to be done is a few bombings, maybe a mass shooting at an airport security line and the whole thing will fall apart. Freedom to move about the country will end. Read the mandate of the TSA. They are focusing on airlines now but there is nothing to stop them from doing this on railroads or even highways when you enter a city.
Click to expand...

A) the first statement isn't completely true. There have been some radical attacks where there was a radio-controlled detonator included as part of the bomb worn by a suicide bomber... that was included just in case the suicide bomber got cold feet.

B) I think the goal changed a bit (or we didn't understand originally). It appears that the goal is to destroy our society and economy. It is not necessary to kill folks to accomplish that. OBL understands how our government (and many sheeple) is willing to sell out their rights & freedoms hoping for security. From that aspect, he has become an astute observer of American human nature.

murphey said:
And what really amazes me is that people with various types of DOD & DOE security clearances ("those types of tickets") who go thru drug & lie detector tests at any time, who've gone thru months of background checks (including relatives, friends, neighbors and others) and have probably gone thru a more rigorous check than anyone and everyone in TSA, are still subject to all this theatre.
Click to expand...

Correct. Folks with SSBI and deeper investigations (SCI, SAP, etc) are able to work with all kinds of information that could harm the US if disclosed. Yet TSA has said "that's not good enough", everyone is a threat. Their view is beyond idiotic.

ScottM said:
I am fairly confident that the MC gives full support to their moderators as well :eek::eek::eek::eek:

MC = Hitler :hairraise::hairraise::hairraise::hairraise:






:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Click to expand...

Godwinning the thread will get you nowhere.
 
wondering about the potential backlash to assuring the backscatter image viewer that he's "Number 1" ...
 
ScottM said:
Give credit where credit is due. That was Mr Spike that launched the initial goodwin!!! :D:D

Singling me out shows that you MC types are all in cahoots!!! :D:D:D:D
Click to expand...

Mr. Spike didn't Godwin the MC... :rolleyes2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top