There was an article about the scanners in Europe somewhere that were having trouble seeing through different types of clothing. How exactly are these things supposed to make us safer? If the TSA has to make you remove clothes to get scanned, doesn't that defeat the purpose of having them?

Zogby poll 61% opposed to new airport security measures.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/11/new-poll-says-61-oppose-new-airport-security-measures.html

tk421;573323 wrote:There was an article about the scanners in Europe somewhere that were having trouble seeing through different types of clothing. How exactly are these things supposed to make us safer? If the TSA has to make you remove clothes to get scanned, doesn't that defeat the purpose of having them?

They'll probably begin announcing something to this effect: "For your convenience, please try not to wear clothing made from the following fabric or materials:"

Ah, yes. For OUR convenience.

Very good analysis here.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101123_aviation_security_threats_and_realities?utm_source=SWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101124&utm_content=readmore&elq=98da6814a5d142aca72c70b46c2f3fc3

For all the yammering being done on this thread, I have yet to see anyone show how the Israeli method of observation, profiling and interrogation would be done here in the U.S. without lengthy delays and increased cost (which would probably be passed along to the ticket-buying public). It seems that a lot of you have thrown the Israeli method around as being less invasive, but you don't offer up any details as to how it could be successfully implemented in the U.S. I would likely believe that, if this were done here, there would be all sorts of bitching about this as well.

stlouiedipalma;575869 wrote:For all the yammering being done on this thread, I have yet to see anyone show how the Israeli method of observation, profiling and interrogation would be done here in the U.S. without lengthy delays and increased cost (which would probably be passed along to the ticket-buying public). It seems that a lot of you have thrown the Israeli method around as being less invasive, but you don't offer up any details as to how it could be successfully implemented in the U.S. I would likely believe that, if this were done here, there would be all sorts of bitching about this as well.

I would believe that also, because there's people who would get fired up about political correctness being ignored.

CenterBHSFan;575946 wrote:I would believe that also, because there's people who would get fired up about political correctness being ignored.

They're already fired up about it. Just look at the OC lefties crying "racist" when profiling is mentioned. The problem is profiling is not racism in this instance...it's common sense in a post 9-11 world.

stlouiedipalma;575869 wrote:For all the yammering being done on this thread, I have yet to see anyone show how the Israeli method of observation, profiling and interrogation would be done here in the U.S. without lengthy delays and increased cost (which would probably be passed along to the ticket-buying public). It seems that a lot of you have thrown the Israeli method around as being less invasive, but you don't offer up any details as to how it could be successfully implemented in the U.S. I would likely believe that, if this were done here, there would be all sorts of bitching about this as well.

Besides the obvious political issues with profiling, the main hindrance is cost. The Israelis don't cut corners when it comes to defense and would not allow security agents to be in charge of their country's security. To do it right would take extensive training, intel that is more readily accessible, and likely a military-style presence. I believe these could be done, but we'll never get past the profiling question, so it really doesn't matter. I like the idea of armed marshals on flights. Either incognito or in full view...their job would be to disarm/kill terrorists on the spot.

I Wear Pants;573194 wrote:And these scanners don't actually detect those. If they simply make a rounded charge against their stomach then these scanners likely won't show anything abnormal.

wouldnt there be a difference in density or something between the C4 and someone 's body?

stlouiedipalma;575869 wrote:For all the yammering being done on this thread, I have yet to see anyone show how the Israeli method of observation, profiling and interrogation would be done here in the U.S. without lengthy delays and increased cost (which would probably be passed along to the ticket-buying public). It seems that a lot of you have thrown the Israeli method around as being less invasive, but you don't offer up any details as to how it could be successfully implemented in the U.S. I would likely believe that, if this were done here, there would be all sorts of bitching about this as well.

haha i was meaning to ask this too. people forget the Israelis do things that would never "fly" here in the states.

Glory Days;576005 wrote:haha i was meaning to ask this too. people forget the Israelis do things that would never "fly" here in the states.

Pun intende?? LOL

Everyone who just loves the new screening get ready, it's coming to a train or ship near you. Slippery slope, remember?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says terrorists will continue to look for U.S. vulnerabilities, making tighter security standards necessary.
“[Terrorists] are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through,” Napolitano said in an interview that aired Monday night on "Charlie Rose."

“I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?”

So, once they have the planes, trains, and maritime security wrapped up, what's next? The terrorist won't stop, where else will the public be subject to invasive searches?

BGFalcons82;575962 wrote:Besides the obvious political issues with profiling, the main hindrance is cost. The Israelis don't cut corners when it comes to defense and would not allow security agents to be in charge of their country's security. To do it right would take extensive training, intel that is more readily accessible, and likely a military-style presence. I believe these could be done, but we'll never get past the profiling question, so it really doesn't matter. I like the idea of armed marshals on flights. Either incognito or in full view...their job would be to disarm/kill terrorists on the spot.

The armed marshalls on the flights is OK, but what happens when a terrorist smuggles a bomb (or any explosive device) onto the plane? The marshall gets blown to bits along with everyone else on the plane. I underrstand the idea, but it would only foil a hijack attempt.

Glory Days;576005 wrote:haha i was meaning to ask this too. people forget the Israelis do things that would never "fly" here in the states.

That was a good one...I wish I had thought of it.

I really believe, along with many here, that the Israeli method is the best, most effective method to go along with the old metal detectors. I just don't see it as being feasible in as many airports as we have that would need it. The armed military presence, the cost of training, the potential for lengthy delays are things which a lot of citizens wouldn't be willing to accept. Israel has, according to some, only two international airports. We have a few more than that.

Has anyone thought of turning the TSA duties over to the military? Believe you me, if I knew that soldiers with assault weapons were on the security lines, that manicure set with scissors would definitely be in the checked luggage. I'd also be willing to bet that the security lines would become a whole lot quieter and serious.

stlouiedipalma;576248 wrote: Has anyone thought of turning the TSA duties over to the military? Believe you me, if I knew that soldiers with assault weapons were on the security lines, that manicure set with scissors would definitely be in the checked luggage. I'd also be willing to bet that the security lines would become a whole lot quieter and serious.

haha you could have special ops guys running security, you would still have some idiot think it was alright to try and take his pocket knife on the plane with him or have some dude say "if you touch my junk, i'll sue you".

Glory Days;575999 wrote:wouldnt there be a difference in density or something between the C4 and someone 's body?

It was said/shown in a interview on AC360 and I think I may have read about it in a WSJ article.

Glory Days;575999 wrote:wouldnt there be a difference in density or something between the C4 and someone 's body?

It's irrelevant anyway. They can opt out of the scan and get the grope-down.

justincredible;578852 wrote:It's irrelevant anyway. They can opt out of the scan and get the grope-down.

True. Is there a difference between groping someone's junk and copping a feel of C4?

^^^LOL

I'd rather be a live "bigot" than be politically correct and dead. Go ahead and profile.

Would you rather be alive in a police state or dead in the Land of the Free?

O-Trap;580659 wrote:Would you rather be alive in a police state or dead in the Land of the Free?

The second one.

O-Trap;580659 wrote:Would you rather be alive in a police state or dead in the Land of the Free?

So let me get this straight....you're against searching those most likely to set off explosives in a plane? I'd take my chances staying alive in America by using Israel's airline security methods.

stlouiedipalma;575869 wrote:For all the yammering being done on this thread, I have yet to see anyone show how the Israeli method of observation, profiling and interrogation would be done here in the U.S. without lengthy delays and increased cost (which would probably be passed along to the ticket-buying public). It seems that a lot of you have thrown the Israeli method around as being less invasive, but you don't offer up any details as to how it could be successfully implemented in the U.S. I would likely believe that, if this were done here, there would be all sorts of bitching about this as well.

It should actually speed up the process and cost less. There is no compelling reason to frisk or scan 95% of the people, thus the processing of 95% of the traffic would improve. The 5% who need to be seriously monitored would then get the full attention of the security personnel.

Ankle Breaker;580707 wrote:So let me get this straight....you're against searching those most likely to set off explosives in a plane? I'd take my chances staying alive in America by using Israel's airline security methods.

And who is "most likely" to set off explosives in a plane?

The problem is, how wide do we set the parameters on this? Moreover, whether by little or by much, people's stereotyping of who is "most likely" to set off such explosives is going to differ.

Do we use YOUR definition of who is "most likely" to do it? Do we limit it to three characteristics?

The problem is that, as explained earlier in this thread, this is reactionary. If security begins to use specific parameters for such searches, terrorist organizations intending to do us harm will simply peruse their ranks until they find someone who doesn't fit said profile. It's a pretty easy solution for them, and as such, this doesn't really help us at all.