#51 2010-01-04 11:52:50
Em wrote:
Coulter and her entourage belittle the risk and assume our enemies are not smart enough to recognize and capitalize on our tendencies; this is the danger introduced by profiling for a specific political gambit.
As opposed to what the TSA and Homeland Security is doing now? How stupid would a terrorist be to place explosives in his shoe, or try to take over a plane with a box knife? but the TSA is profiling small knives and shoes and requires all of us to remove them. How about the idiotic notion that we can no longer leave our plane seats within one hour of landing just because the latest terrorist waited until late in the flight? Are our enemies smart enough to detonate their bombs 1 hour and 10 minutes before landing?
Profiling Islamic men with questionable passport histories is proactive and would be a much more productive use of our resources. Until the Jihadists can show they are successful in recruiting white Americans who have never traveled to an Islamic state, I say save the body searches for the swarthy ones.
Offline
#52 2010-01-05 10:21:47
I just wonder how someone got explosives through an area that was supposed to screen for organic explosive compounds, metals, suspicious residues, etc. The TSA spends hundreds of millions of your dollars on very complex "screening" and detection devices for airports. Most of those devices were rushed to market and often poorly tested. Most gate agents have to rely on a secondary screening using a hand held metal detector that hasn't really technically improved in the last 30 years.
If you don't want to worry about profiling, come up with a good machine that can do a metallic, nuclear, chemical and biological screen on someone quickly. Then you could fire 3/4 of the useless TSA goons and eliminate the human and political element.
But wouldn't a low concentration of nitrous oxide gas in the cabin be just as effective? Knock everyone out before takeoff and wake them up upon touchdown...
Offline
#53 2010-01-05 12:47:36
Actually the hour before landing makes sense, there is an exposure point when you re-enter reliable cell phone coverage. Al Queada has turned to remote detonation in recent years to better execute their trademark simultaneous attacks and lower the risk of "people" failure. I'm betting this was just a convienent moment to roll out this particular measure.
Offline
#54 2010-01-05 12:53:38
Considering everything we now know that our security people knew all along about this guy , I wonder if we could stop anybody with the current TSA screening process. I mean this guy is a walking poster child jihadist and we didn't even take a second look.
Offline
#55 2010-01-05 15:58:53
phreddy wrote:
Considering everything we now know that our security people knew all along about this guy , I wonder if we could stop anybody with the current TSA screening process. I mean this guy is a walking poster child jihadist and we didn't even take a second look.
I still contend that the processes are universally sound but our failure to hire talented professionals to execute those processes negates any procedure you could put into place.
Starting pay for a TSA Agent should be $100k p/year and we should only accept the top applicants.
Offline
#56 2010-01-05 16:42:48
Not to sound fnordlike but, affirmative action would prohibit always hiring the best person for the job. There would be $100k a year 25 year old crack whores from the ghetto.
Offline
#58 2010-01-05 17:04:44
In this case, profiling is sort of beside the point. No profiling should have been needed, as there was passenger-specific information that should have been addressed.
Depressing as it may be, one must assume that once airline security is tightened sufficiently, people with bombs will just turn to other targets. Helen Keller said "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it." Or maybe she signed it.
EDIT: Note to Phreddy - I am not saying that profiling would be pointless.
Last edited by Fled (2010-01-05 17:06:33)
Offline
#59 2010-01-05 20:55:29
I wouldn't have thought the name on her passport was the problem.
I would have thought the agent had a problem with a face smoother than a baby's ass when the passport says she's 77 years old.
Offline
#60 2010-01-05 21:57:31
Montecore wrote:
I wouldn't have thought the name on her passport was the problem.
I would have thought the agent had a problem with a face smoother than a baby's ass when the passport says she's 77 years old.
Who knows, maybe the same asshole Continental employee who gave me a bad time in Amsterdam has transferred to Costa Rica. Elderly women with faces as smooth as a baby's ass are a common sight in California or New York where Joan spends most of her time. And an old lady who has had lots of plastic surgery shouldn't arouse suspicion during boarding for the first class section.
Offline
#61 2010-01-06 18:58:05
:
"New York-area travelers were also reporting their own horror stories. "It was just one security checkpoint after the other," said Carmella Rodriguez, 65, of Brooklyn, after barely making it through customs at Newark with her nephew after arriving from Panama. "I told my nephew I felt like I was a delinquent person.""
And that, I think, is the whole point of the exercise: Condition people with enough money to fly to automatically cower in the presence of a uniform.
Fuck 'em.
Offline
#62 2010-01-06 19:04:05
The crap that's going on in airports is the reason I just rent a car and drive these days.
I will not spend good money to be treated like an inmate in a maximum-security prison.
Offline
#63 2010-01-06 19:15:47
Montecore wrote:
I will not spend good money to be treated like an inmate in a maximum-security prison.
Well put, Montecore.
I could not have said it better.
Offline
#64 2010-01-06 19:35:25
The right wing is incensed to find that they too may be pulled aside.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/05/b … e-airport/
Offline
#65 2010-01-06 19:40:47
Shit! Wifey and I are heading to Mexico for a little vacation next week. Looks like I'll waste a significant part of it in the airport. I suppose this means I shouldn't try to bring home any drugs in my jailhouse wallet.
Offline
#67 2010-01-06 21:27:12
MSG Tripps wrote:
Damn you, Sarge, you almost killed me. I read the headline and laughed so hard I nearly swallowed my cigarette. Ow.
Offline
#68 2010-01-06 21:33:56
Hey George Orr. I have heard cigarettes can kill
I know why I smoke.
A bottle blond popped out of the TV and gave them to me when I was a young man. [Except for that menthol stuff.]
Last edited by MSG Tripps (2010-01-06 21:34:25)
Offline
#69 2010-01-08 09:46:24
phreddy wrote:
I suppose this means I shouldn't try to bring home any drugs in my jailhouse wallet.
Only the natural residues.
It's all a plan by the TSA to piss so many people off that you just drive or stay home. Then they can all relax on their unbreakable government union jobs.
Offline
#70 2010-01-10 18:37:15
Montecore wrote:
The crap that's going on in airports is the reason I just rent a car and drive these days.
I will not spend good money to be treated like an inmate in a maximum-security prison.
I drive mostly when I have time and don't have to cross the ocean. This is a beautiful country. I have driven from Pa. to Vegas a few times. Great trip if you can take your time and fuck off when you want to.
Offline
