It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Clinton: TSA Should Try to Make Airport Screening Less Intrusive

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
She also says she wouldn't submit to a pat-down if she could avoid it.

Clinton: TSA Should Try to Make Airport Screening Less Intrusive


Clinton says there's clearly a need for the tighter security. But she says the government should explore ways to "to limit the number of people who are going to be put through surveillance."

She says she understands "how offensive it must be" for some people to undergo the searches. She says there's a need to strike "the right balance" and to "get it better and less intrusive and more precise."

Would she submit to a pat-down? "Not if I could avoid it," Clinton says. "No. I mean, who would?"


You won't hear me say this too often - so I'll go ahead and get it out of the way.

I agree with Hillary Clinton on this.


Now - the question is - what comes of this? Its a slap in the face to Big Sis, Obama and the rest of the administration who have been spouting the company line and will boost her popularity with the public.

It will make her seem more "in touch" with the public when the rest of the administration seems to be totally out of touch with the public.

So why? Could she be eying a run down the road?

In any event, hopefully it will put pressure on them to change this non-sense.




posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
ANY governmental official should be strip searched and body cavity searched, because I think they are hiding something.

Just my theory.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs

Now - the question is - what comes of this? Its a slap in the face to Big Sis, Obama and the rest of the administration who have been spouting the company line and will boost her popularity with the public.

It will make her seem more "in touch" with the public when the rest of the administration seems to be totally out of touch with the public.

So why? Could she be eying a run down the road?


I doubt it, honestly. She won't run in 2012 because Obama will, and she will be, what is it, almost 70 by the time 2016 comes around (she is 63 right now, so she would be turning 69 right before the 2016 election.) It could be plausible if Obama doesn't run again in 2012 though, that Hillary would be the Democratic Candidate. So perhaps Obama is not planning on sticking around haha



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by spacekc929
 


Hmmm.. well - if he doesn't turn things around I wouldn't be surprised if that didn't happen.

She could just be taking a swipe at him because... well... because of lingering bad blood, because its easy, because its fun and because she can.


In any event - she is a very powerful figure. Her coming out and saying this is a direct blow against the admin and the current "we need to see and / or grope your junk" policy.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Ron Paul said the same thing...

On the floor of the house of representatives!



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
So, by less intrusive, is she opening the door to the shock bracelets?

ATS topic found here: Government Issued Stun Shock Bracelets for all Airline Passengers



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
 


Well, if you got my obtuse way of saying things, NO ONE should be violated for such things.

Yes, some people will be harmed. Will things change because of that harm? Of course, but NO ONE should EVER give up their rights of Freedom and Liberty.

I would rather DIE free, than to give an ounce of Freedom to the terrorists!



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
so the government gets to save us from terrorists.

who saves us from the government?

if we took the same pre-emptive attitude towards a tyrannical government...how do you think it would play out?

all you need is a label (terrorist) an example that the threat of the label is real (9/11) and a solution/promise to exterminate the label(police state).

so now lets think of a big scary label/term for corrupt politician(tyrant). create an "Event" involving and exposing one of those politicians (watergate style), then have a force ready to prevent/exterminate the problem (tea party)

hmm i can see it now.

"tea party forces raid suspected village harboring Tyrants"

"HUGE cache of check stubs, receipts, and promisary notes found during lobbyist raid in suspected tyrant home"

"Tea party Department of civilian freedom security forces crack down on tyranny at local airports, looking through checkbooks, cell phones, and wallets for signs of funding tyranny.

20 bonus points if you flase flag it, and get one of your cronies to run for some office, only to plan out and execute an orchestrated scandal, while at the same time funding and organizing the tea party movement.




we learn from the best.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
 


RON PAUL IS THE

MAN




new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join