TSA Caves On Molesting Pilots

TSA Caves On Molesting Pilots

www.prisonplanet.com

Feds beginning to back down in face of national outrage, but no word on ordinary travelers being subjected to airport oppression. TSA Administrator John Pistole told CNN’s John Roberts this morning that the feds were looking at changing pat down procedures for pilots, a first indication that the government is beginning to back down in the face of a nationwide backlash against naked body scanners and intrusive airport groping measures. A “risk-based” approached should not include targeting the very people who represent the least risk – women, children, the elderly and the disabled –

(visit the link for the full news article)

Just an update, but if the pilots are treated with some sort of dignity, if they are no longer groped, wouldn't it suggest that those who pay the bills would be treated better?

It's almost like we the people are being labeled as terrorists as well, or maybe, this blatant disregard of the 4th Amendment rights are just leading us into the belief of " security " when its dictating and control they are after?



www.prisonplanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I c it this way. Who cares what the piolts have on them. They fly the plan and already in controll of all thoose lives.

well...i would say that being a white male puts me in a low risk category....right? Not many planes blown out of the sky by my demographic.

How is it violating the 4th Amendment? The 4th Amendment only protects you against "unreasonable searches and seizures".

An aircraft flies above populated areas, has nearly 100 or more people on board, and can easily be used to cause massive destruction (as seen on 9/11), and has been a target for terror for many years. How is it unreasonable to be searched for weapons before you get on one?

How is it an unreasonable search when you (the people wanting to fly) are volunteering to fly on an aircraft which requires a search for weapons before boarding? If you are voluntarily going onto an aircraft which requires you to pass security, you are in turn volunteering to be searched. The moment you buy that plane ticket you are volunteering to be searched.

Also, what is up with these exaggerated sensationalist claims of being "molested"?

With your definition, I guess high school wrestling teams are molesting each other?

The cheerleaders and the figure skaters are all molesting each other when they hold each other over their heads?

Proctologists and Gynaecologist are professional molesters?

When police officers pat you down for weapons, you are actually being molested?

Every time you change a diaper on a child and wipe it's private areas clean, you are molesting a child?

Give me a break people.

You are not special, you are not getting special treatment. If you want to board an aircraft you need to be searched for weapons. If you don't like the current methods, then invent a better way, or just be quiet, or find another form of transportation.

Pilots should just strike, it would bring a lot more attention to the issue of the pat-downs/body scanning in general.

Peace

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


In that case rule out black men too, I don't think any of us have blown a plane out of a sky either. But you cant start ruling people out or we'll just end up racial profiling anybody with yellow-ish orange-ish skin. Its a slippery slope my friend

double post

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
How is it violating the 4th Amendment? The 4th Amendment only protects you against "unreasonable searches and seizures".

It's unreasonable because:

• I've already passed the medal detector test
  
• My luggage has already passed the X-Ray test
  
• If they want to "sniff" for explosives, use those machines or dogs
  
• Supposedly, it's "random", meaning they have no probable cause to search my genitals
  
• The Full Body Scanner's safety is dubious at best - unproven safe
  
• The "reason" they are searching is for bombs, who's to say it isn't in the rectum/vagina? Ergo, their "reason" to touch my exterior genitals is invalid.
  
• Majority of passengers do NOT get enhanced screening, meaning that the TSA is giving their so-called terrorists a statistical likely hood of getting on board the plane. Why?
  
• NO REASON.
  
• The "Underwear Bomber" was escorted past security with no passport, and was not asked to go through the full body scan, which was available at that airport at that time, and was not given "enhanced pat down".
  
• You are more likely to be killed by a Police Officer than by a terrorist on an airplane. So what are we talking about then?
  

Their searches are unreasonable because they achieve nothing and degrade everybody.

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

In that case rule out black men too, I don't think any of us have blown a plane out of a sky either. But you cant start ruling people out or we'll just end up racial profiling anybody with yellow-ish orange-ish skin. Its a slippery slope my friend

The Slippery Slope is an informal fallacy. In Denying Ignorance, we have to deny fallacies of logic.

My point is that excluding anyone creates a rights abuse issue. You, being a black man, would be far more sensitive to this than me, based on what I would presume your lifes experiences may have been (if you are American). My hispanic wife notices instances of discrimination against the both of us that I never even know is there. Mostly because she grew up with it, and can identify it easily. Me? I just smile and go through my day.

reply to post by WakeUpAndC


Thats a truly excellent point. What is the point of patting down a pilot? If he/she wants to kill the people on board all he/she has to do is crash the plane.

What gets me is how ineffective all this crap really is. Like the war on drugs. Like taking guns away from people in the UK. Criminals will always get guns if they really want or need them. And there will always be a way to get something dangerous on an airplane if you really want to. Its just a way of conditioning us to accept more and more violations of freedoms.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

An aircraft flies above populated areas, has nearly 100 or more people on board, and can easily be used to cause massive destruction (as seen on 9/11), and has been a target for terror for many years. How is it unreasonable to be searched for weapons before you get on one?

How is it an unreasonable search when you (the people wanting to fly) are volunteering to fly on an aircraft which requires a search for weapons before boarding? If you are voluntarily going onto an aircraft which requires you to pass security, you are in turn volunteering to be searched. The moment you buy that plane ticket you are volunteering to be searched.

Using your justification checkpoints would be acceptable at every mall, shopping center, sporting arena, schools, restaurants, bus, upon entering a city, etc, etc, etc. Where does it end?

How can you support such an obvious impediment to free travel? One that is without authority nor necessity?

reply to post by harvib


First, I expected your question of "where does it end". It is a common question to make changes of any sort seem questionable.

ATS changed the look of their website; "Where does it end?". ATS increased moderation in the UFO and Alien forum; "Where does it end?". Dominos Pizza changed the way their pizza tastes; "Where does it end"?. City officials increased highway speed limits from 55 to 65 mph; "Where does it end?". The government increased security at airports; "Where does it end?".

It's an unintelligent question if you ask me...

When does it end? It ends when the problems are solved obviously.

Originally posted by harvib
Using your justification checkpoints would be acceptable at every mall, shopping center,

Malls and shopping centers can not be steered into high valued targets and used as weapons.

Originally posted by harvib
sporting arena, schools,

Sporting arenas and schools already have checkpoints. This is because violence commonly breaks out between to opposing teams in a competition. Also, school children fight, and bring weapons. Ever heard of Columbine High School?

Originally posted by harvib
restaurants, bus, upon entering a city, etc, etc, etc. Where does it end?

When was the last time we had a problem with weapons going into restaurants? How often does that happen?

Buses? How often do we have to worry about buses? You can't even have checkpoints at every bus stop. Maybe every bus, but it's not really necessary as of now.

You can't search everyone entering every city, and there is no real reason to do it. The city itself already has weapons.

Originally posted by harvib
How can you support such an obvious impediment to free travel? One that is without authority nor necessity?

This is not an obvious impediment to free travel.... this is a common sense approach to safety. It's like you are claiming that seat belts in cars and seat belt laws are impediment to free travel.

How can you sit there and claim it is not a necessity? Do you not understand how airliners can be used as guided missiles? Do you honestly expect people to just allow weapons and bombs on an airliner?

Without authority? That is like claiming the government has no authority over you making a guided missile in your back yard.

Get real people.

p.s. don't bother posting Benjamin Franklin's quote.

Originally posted by harrytuttle
It's unreasonable because:

• I've already passed the medal detector test
  

Metal detectors only detect metal. They do not detect plastic explosives.

Originally posted by harrytuttle

My luggage has already passed the X-Ray test

X-Ray's don't show details of certain objects, and there are many methods of hiding objects within solid objects so they are hard to see with X-Rays.

Originally posted by harrytuttle

If they want to "sniff" for explosives, use those machines or dogs

People would then cry about dogs sniffing their luggage. (they already have)

Dogs not only take a long time to train, but the people who handle the dogs take a long time to train. They are not perfect detection methods, and smells can be masked. One dog can not be trained to smell every type of explosive, and would require multiple dogs which is impractical on large scales such as the 1000's of airports around the world.

Originally posted by harrytuttle

Supposedly, it's "random", meaning they have no probable cause to search my genitals

They added in the "random" searches so that people who want to smuggle weapons on an aircraft have to worry about it. If you think you are clever and try to only choose which search method you want, that is suspicious, plain and simple. So they add in the "random" to make it more difficult for people to get away with murder.

The only reason they search genitals is because that is the number 1 place to hide illegal objects. Please do at least acknowledge that. That is why police officers ask people to "spread their legs" when they do a pat down, so people can't hide objects between their legs.

Do you think you are special? You think everyone should trust you, and trust that you are not hiding weapons near your genitals?

Originally posted by harrytuttle

The Full Body Scanner's safety is dubious at best - unproven safe

You get more radiation standing outside in the sun than you do from the full body scanners. Full body scanners just use light... it's just light... are you afraid of light?

Originally posted by harrytuttle

The "reason" they are searching is for bombs, who's to say it isn't in the rectum/vagina? Ergo, their "reason" to touch my exterior genitals is invalid.

What? They are not just searching for bombs, they are searching for all types of weapons, and illegal objects.

The reason they search genitals is because when people try to hide bulging things under their clothing they try to disguise these objects as natural body parts by putting them near bulging body parts so they can claim it is their body part and not a weapon of some sort. Don't you know anything about humans trying to hide things under clothing?

Yes, things can be hidden inside body parts. Luckily these objects can only be very small, and usually make people walk funny. If suspected of doing so you will get a "cavity search" which searches your "cavities". It is rare but possible. They can't cavity search everyone.

Originally posted by harrytuttle

Majority of passengers do NOT get enhanced screening, meaning that the TSA is giving their so-called terrorists a statistical likely hood of getting on board the plane. Why?

Hence the reason for "random". With the "random" scans they decrease the statistical likely hood of getting on board the plane.

Do you now understand the purpose for the "random" scan?

Why? Because enhanced screening takes up time, and people cry about that too.

Originally posted by harrytuttle

NO REASON.

No reason?? Get real....

Yeah there is no reason to search for weapons before you allow someone on a potential guided missile.

Originally posted by harrytuttle

The "Underwear Bomber" was escorted past security with no passport, and was not asked to go through the full body scan, which was available at that airport at that time, and was not given "enhanced pat down".

Thank you for proving there IS a reason for full body scans, and pat downs, right after you claimed there is no reason.

Originally posted by harrytuttle

You are more likely to be killed by a Police Officer than by a terrorist on an airplane. So what are we talking about then?

A single terrorist on an airplane has the potential to kill thousands of more people than a single Police Officer in his entire carrier.

If you truly can not understand the importance of security on an aircraft, God help you.

Originally posted by harrytuttle
Their searches are unreasonable because they achieve nothing and degrade everybody.

Achieve nothing? Ok, lets see you bring a gun on an aircraft.

Degrade everybody? Speak for your self. Not everyone is blind and ignorant of the importance of security checks, and not everyone is selfish as to expect to be held to a higher standard than everyone else.

I don't trust anyone. I am glad they search everyone for weapons. And because I respect that others many not trust me, I am glad and willing to go through a security check just like everyone else, equally, so we can all have a higher trust in each other.

I do not want to get on an aircraft that does not have security, that would be stupid.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

First, I expected your question of "where does it end". It is a common question to make changes of any sort seem questionable.

ATS changed the look of their website; "Where does it end?". ATS increased moderation in the UFO and Alien forum; "Where does it end?". Dominos Pizza changed the way their pizza tastes; "Where does it end"?. City officials increased highway speed limits from 55 to 65 mph; "Where does it end?". The government increased security at airports; "Where does it end?".

It's an unintelligent question if you ask me...

First off we are not talking about a private business making changes to their business or products. We are talking about a third party using strong arm tactics and terror to implement their will.

Secondly based on this quote by you:

An aircraft flies above populated areas, has nearly 100 or more people on board, and can easily be used to cause massive destruction (as seen on 9/11), and has been a target for terror for many years.

I believe that your requirements for an invasive, time consuming, radioactive, demoralizing, and dehumanizing checkpoints could just as easily be justified at the list I provided in my previous post. For each rebuttal you gave for why a checkpoint is different then an airport I could give several on why they are even more impactful and significant.

You are aware that 9/11 wasn't the first WTC attack? Do you recall the Oklahoma City bombing? The anthrax attacks, etc.

The bottom line is that if these checkpoints are necessary at an airport they are necessary almost anywhere because an airport and airplane are not the only way to inflict mass causalities.

The devastation caused by a truck entering LA or NYC with a device could certainly cause the death of millions. Exponentially more then a plane and some box cutters or a man and his underwear could. Should we install checkpoints at the entrance to every city? I would have to assume you believe we should. But what about quality of life? Is a life lived in terror waiting to go through insufficient checkpoints a life of any sort of quality?


Thirdly, let's talk about unintelligence. Cancer is the second cause of death in the US. Where do you think death caused by terrorist ranks?

A 9/11 event could happen every other day in the US and cancer would still be the leading cause of death. We know radiation causes cancer.Yet the unintelligent find it acceptable to walk through radiation machines to "protect" themselves from terrorist despite the astronomically low odds of expiring from terrorism and the extremely high odds of developing and dieing from cancer. Does this sound intelligent to you?

Originally posted by harvib
First off we are not talking about a private business making changes to their business or products. We are talking about a third party using strong arm tactics and terror to implement their will.

We are talking about something changing, and asking the question "where does it end" is illogical, and is an appeal to emotion and fear about it "never ending".

Strong arm tactics and terror? Look at yourself crying...

What is so terrorizing about getting searched for weapons before being allowed on a potential guided missile?

Originally posted by harvib
Secondly based on this quote by you:

I believe that your requirements for an invasive, time consuming, radioactive, demoralizing, and dehumanizing checkpoints could just as easily be justified at the list I provided in my previous post. For each rebuttal you gave for why a checkpoint is different then an airport I could give several on why they are even more impactful and significant.

Invasive? You MUST be searched for weapons, PERIOD. That involves being invasive because people with weapons are evasive.

Time consuming? Oh cry some more about your precious time. Time doesn't matter when you are dead.

Radioactive? Sunlight is more radioactive than those scanners. Those scanners just use light. Very very small amounts of light.

Demoralizing? That is in the eye of the beholder.

Dehumanizing? What a stretch. You are such an over exaggerated sensationalist. What is dehumanizing is people who feel they are special and shouldn't be checked for weapons like everyone else before the board a potential guided missile.

Originally posted by harvib
You are aware that 9/11 wasn't the first WTC attack? Do you recall the Oklahoma City bombing? The anthrax attacks, etc.

Of course I am aware. What does that have to do with people trying to get weapons on an aircraft which is a potential guided missile? 9/11 was just an example of AIRCRAFT being used as a guided missile. We are talking about AIRPORT SECURITY. What you say is irrelevant to this discussion.

Originally posted by harvib
The bottom line is that if these checkpoints are necessary at an airport they are necessary almost anywhere because an airport and airplane are not the only way to inflict mass causalities.

Do you even realize how illogical that argument is?

Just because it is necessary to install and alarm on your car, doesn't mean it is necessary to install an alarm on every single object you own. It's a matter of what is more vulnerable and what is more likely to need an alarm.

Aircrafts are potential guided missiles that can reach targets at speeds of 500 mph, and targets which are hard to reach. I think they need a little more security than a bus which is slow and restricted to roads.

Originally posted by harvib
The devastation caused by a truck entering LA or NYC with a device could certainly cause the death of millions.

And the US has several ways to detect people who try to make those devices, and they keep an eye out fo mysterious trucks and packages.

An aircraft used as a potential guided missile is way more of a security risk than mostly anything I can think of right now. I would rather have security than no security at all at airports.....

Originally posted by harvib
Exponentially more then a plane and some box cutters or a man and his underwear could. Should we install checkpoints at the entrance to every city? I would have to assume you believe we should. But what about quality of life? Is a life lived in terror waiting to go through insufficient checkpoints a life of any sort of quality?

You assume wrongly.

You are arguing about putting checkpoints everywhere to dismiss putting checkpoints in airports.... how illogical can you get?

Terror of going through checkpoints? What are you a terrorist? What are you so worried about? Why are you so terrorized by checkpoints? You got something to hide??

Originally posted by harvib
Thirdly, let's talk about unintelligence. Cancer is the second cause of death in the US. Where do you think death caused by terrorist ranks?

A 9/11 event could happen every other day in the US and cancer would still be the leading cause of death.

Now you are using cancer to make a point? How low can you get?

Billions of dollars are being used to research cures for cancers. Billions of dollars are used to cure cancer every day.... what is your point?

Originally posted by harvib
We know radiation causes cancer.Yet the unintelligent find it acceptable to walk through radiation machines to "protect" themselves from terrorist despite the astronomically low odds of expiring from terrorism and the extremely high odds of developing and dieing from cancer. Does this sound intelligent to you?

We also know that radiation kills cancer.

en.wikipedia.org...

There is no "high odds of developing cancer" from walking through scanners. These scanners use LIGHT.... yes LIGHT to scan you. You have higher chances of getting cancer stepping outside in the sunlight than you do stepping through the scanners. The truly unintelligent don't understand this fact.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

You just don't get it. Probably never will. If ever anybody was part of the problem and not the solution....

reply to post by harrytuttle


Of course I get it. I can easily pretend to be a scared paranoid government authority hating conspiracy theorist and understand your "arguments" from that point of view. You all are predictable.

Oh boohoo, a person has to check your private parts for weapons. That is like crying when a doctor has to check your private parts during a physical.

Oh boohoo, they had to increase security to save your butt from lunatics, and now you are afraid security increases will never stop and you are going to have nightmares about the movie "1984".

Oh boohoo, you have to walk through a machine that flashes light at you to see if you are hiding weapons. Why don't you cry about the sunlight while you are at it.

I get it, you all are scared paranoid and afraid. Some reason you feel it is effecting your 4th Amendment rights when you are actually volunteering as soon as you drive to the airport.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


"They" did not "Increase" security for protection - it was done for profit... it was a business decision, nothing more.
Let's be real.

reply to post by LadySkadi


I know this is a conspiracy website and all, but seriously.... really.... for money... ok sure.

Oh yes, because hiring and paying more TSA workers, spending lots of money on security scanning devices, potentially scaring the public into not wanting to fly any more = more money.

If that is "being real" to you... wow.