Michelle: No, I don’t support whole-body imaging at airport checkpoints
posted at 7:00 pm on January 7, 2010 by Allahpundit
Via the Right Scoop, a minor surprise from my favorite “security mom.” It’s not the privacy concerns that have her worried, although those are real; it’s that, like much of America, her confidence in TSA has simply collapsed. And who can blame her?
In order to provide an illusion of security, we have made air travel impractical for nearly any trip that is less than a full day’s drive.
If you are satisfied with this, then by all means let’s put some new functionary in charge at the Transportation Security Administration without any further thought. If you see a problem here, then perhaps it’s time to re-think everything — including the TSA’s existence as we know it.
We have learned much recently about post-9/11 airport security policies. We do not have a system that failed — we have a system that is designed to fail.
Follow the link for Freddoso’s parade of horribles and see for yourself if he’s exaggerating. I’m on Hannity’s side insofar as I think that even semi-competently administered imaging is better than no imaging at all, but MM’s point about the big-picture failures here — starting with the State Department’s insane recklessness in handing out visas to people from “problem countries” — is the takeaway. Exit question: What’s the bigger surprise today, Michelle opposing extra screening or centrist David Frum pounding the table about profiling?









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Put all the technology you can up there, if the guy running the equipment doesn’t give a crap or is barely awake, it won’t matter.
Bishop on January 7, 2010 at 7:06 PM
For me, the bigger surprise is Frum. Scans are expensive, I’m not so sure how safe they even are to walk through and they won’t do anything but create more wait times and give some people a false sense of increased security. So I’m not surprised that Michelle’s opposed to them.
DrAllecon on January 7, 2010 at 7:07 PM
Hey, if the boss is against it, so am I.
royzer on January 7, 2010 at 7:07 PM
You know who had a bill pass the House, which was later dumped in committee, to preventing “handing out visas to people from problem countries?”
That’s right. Ron Paul.
Rae on January 7, 2010 at 7:08 PM
Looking at the picture currently up on Drudge, I’m going to have to disagree.
BDavis on January 7, 2010 at 7:08 PM
If a terrorist makes it to the airport with a bomb in his undies, it’s too late. I say we introduce Ahmed the bombmaker to our variety.
mike_NC9 on January 7, 2010 at 7:09 PM
Here’s a wild idea: Let’s profile and then we can abandon full-body scanning grandma.
amerpundit on January 7, 2010 at 7:09 PM
I don’t agree with her here. The TSA is not as incompetent as it is tasked with an impossible chore. Her criticisms may be valid, and these full body scanners aren’t the end-all and be-all of insuring our safety, but I don’t see any benefit to taking away these full body scanners.
DarkKnight3565 on January 7, 2010 at 7:09 PM
As long as these scans get posted on the internet. I know Obama wants us as citizens to do more, so it’s only right that we scrutinize these images for possible malfeasance ourselves.
This will be great. We can have entire game shows dedicated to matching the body scan with the celebrity.
Vigilante on January 7, 2010 at 7:10 PM
That said, until we can implement such procedures, I’m all for the scanning.
amerpundit on January 7, 2010 at 7:10 PM
BIG SIS WILL NOT PERV UNDER MY CLOTHES!
http://www.drudgereport.com/
C’mon people! The Government does not have a right to do this!!!
Gob on January 7, 2010 at 7:10 PM
It is all a total waste of time just to make you feel safer. At the airports I usually fly through they each have 1 of the ‘puffer’ bomb sniffing machines. Problem is their use is strictly voluntary, the lines split up and you can choose if you want to be held up the extra 3 minutes or so or not. I can’t imagine ANYONE with a bomb in their pants voluntarily walking through any of those machines. SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF SPENDING ALL THIS MONEY ON THEM?
clement on January 7, 2010 at 7:11 PM
exactly.
What does the TSA do when Al Qaeda pivots and sends two or three suicide bombers into 2 or 3 airport terminals at LGA, JFK, and NWK on a Friday evening and they detonate themselves in the screening lines?
elduende on January 7, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Great interview with two of my favorite people. I’m glad I’m not flying anywhere anytime soon.
ErinF on January 7, 2010 at 7:14 PM
She’s wrong, imo. Her position is akin to saying that since we don’t trust the organization, we may as well stop doing *any* security. I mean, if they’re *that* incompetent, why bother doing *anything*?
That would be ridiculous, of course – because even if there are problems, that doesn’t mean the entire process is wrong or that adding sensible additional precautions would be worthless.
If an idea has merit, you do it – AND you push for changes to the process/people. This isn’t an either/or scenario, MM.
Midas on January 7, 2010 at 7:14 PM
I’m okay with body scans-for those who fail the profiling test. It is unnecessary to scan everyone. TSA snafus inspire little confidence. Michelle is right, as usual.
indypat on January 7, 2010 at 7:15 PM
I can see it now…
Totally HOT woman being scanned:
Scanner (panting):
Seven Percent Solution on January 7, 2010 at 7:15 PM
Here’s a wild idea: Let’s profile and then we can abandon full-body scanning grandma.
amerpundit on January 7, 2010 at 7:09 PM
We can’t do that you knuckle-dragging right-wing teabaggin’ racist neandrathal, you ! How dare you even suggest that !!! Racist !!! RRRRAAAAAACCCCCCIIIIST!!!!!
Divider on January 7, 2010 at 7:16 PM
cableguy615 on January 7, 2010 at 7:16 PM
Good Lord, what a freakin’ mess. Reflexive statists with P.C. instincts are going to get a lot of Americans killed.
OhioCoastie on January 7, 2010 at 7:17 PM
Various technical people have told me that millimeter wave devices, full body scanners, to you people from D.C., have unhealthy high levels of radiation which cause can cause multi-generational health problems.
I’m not technical, but perhaps someone might care to ask “trustworthy” technicians about this.
CrazyGene on January 7, 2010 at 7:17 PM
Not a solid B+?
What kind of grade should THIS get then?
MB4 on January 7, 2010 at 7:18 PM
I’m looking for a /sarc tag here but don’t see one. I prefer to gather facts and make my own decisions. You may want to think that through.
BTW, I am against them for the false security these scanners provide. Hiding explosives up your %^&* is a sure way to defeat these. What good is a million $ machine that is so easily defeated?
BierManVA on January 7, 2010 at 7:19 PM
I’m a very frequent flyer by most standards (about 150,000 miles flown in 2009)and I realize that most of the security we through is smoke-and-mirrors, kabuki, whatever you want to call it, especially when cargo isn’t being completely checked.
We need to stop these guys as much as we can before they get to the airport. One thing – no planeload of passengers will ever wait passively again when a terrorist tries something.
Drained Brain on January 7, 2010 at 7:20 PM
You are right. It isn’t either/or. Profiling should be used, but it requires more organizational competence than deploying machines and hiring people to monitor them. There is no silver bullet, as with all security it is a battle on the margin.
dedalus on January 7, 2010 at 7:20 PM
Some would say this is akin to throwing out a package because you don’t like the delivery man’s looks.
MB4 on January 7, 2010 at 7:21 PM
I don’t care if I ever fly again.If I can’t drive there,I’m not goin’.I don’t like the idea of them telling me what I can and can’t do.Get government the heck out of our lives.They screw up everything they touch.
ohiobabe on January 7, 2010 at 7:22 PM
I’d have to read David Frum to have an opinion on his views of profiling. He has a knack of annoying me. As for MM’s displeasure with “extra” screening, I have zero confidence that the images of the famous or people of opposing views on politics and/or unions wouldn’t be all over the internet in a N.Y. minute.
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2010 at 7:23 PM
profile, please
John the Libertarian on January 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM
Yeah but why she’s against it is a bit problematic. It’s not a privacy issue, she doesn’t trust the people at the TSA to be competent other than that, she wouldn’t be against the scanners. She said,”I’m not a civil liberties absolutist”. I think it is a privacy issue and Americans or anyone for that matter should have to give up a piece of their dignity for safety. The eunuch bomber could’ve been stopped with all the conventional methods but people are just not doing their jobs.
Norman Blizter on January 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM
Wow…Michelle surprised me there for sure…
Thing is, it’s precisely because of the TSA’s incompetence that we need full-body scanners. They can only help. Any technology that does the job is better than leaving it to people who don’t know what they’re doing.
JetBoy on January 7, 2010 at 7:25 PM
All the technology in the world won’t protect America from willful blindness and the unquenchable thirst for diversity. As long as security is not the primary concern of those setting security policy we will be vulnerable to attack.
Mormon Doc on January 7, 2010 at 7:25 PM
I am a proponent for the system Israel uses, dare I say it.
royzer on January 7, 2010 at 7:26 PM
“*should have to give up a piece of their dignity for safety”
Norman Blizter on January 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM
*shouldn’t
Norman Blizter on January 7, 2010 at 7:26 PM
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2010 at 7:23 PM
I am with you Cindy. Donald Trump will start a Miss Scan of the Year pageant.
derft on January 7, 2010 at 7:28 PM
For crying out loud, don’t the Israelis owe some favors?
Let’s solve this problem by turning our airport security over to the Israelis who handle it for El Al. Let them to a top to bottom review, and then implement whatever they suggest.
BuckeyeSam on January 7, 2010 at 7:28 PM
It still amazes me that people believe that security screening is going to somehow stop the terrorists from their aims – WAKE UP PEOPLE! The terrorists are winning, we are changing our lifestyle, accepting this or that infringement upon our liberty, and allowing the federal government more power over our lives.
The way to combat terrorism is to go after the terrorists and the states that support them, until we do that they will continue to attack us at home.
Go ahead, sheeple, submit to your full body scanning and whatever else the feds tell you to do, for then you will own the results.
jackal40 on January 7, 2010 at 7:29 PM
Broken clocks are correct twice a day :)
WitchDoctor on January 7, 2010 at 7:30 PM
Oh, just great! Now, when I want to go to Denver, Chicago, St Louis or somewhere around 500 miles, I am going to have to drive instead of fly. I *hate* road trips.
OmahaConservative on January 7, 2010 at 7:30 PM
I agree that the TSA personel would most likely fail anyways, so I am a profile advocat. There are just some people who are obviously worth more time and attention than others.
royzer on January 7, 2010 at 7:30 PM
Wow! I think Michelle hit the nail right on the head when she said this stops at Sec. State’s door.
O’Bambi has found his sacrificial lamb, and it’s name is Hillary!
He “kills two stones with one bird” if he can (ahemm) immasculate her.
I actually feel sorry for our mime-ified sec. state.
(Kind of ironic that they couldn’t castrate Bill, but…just sayin!)
Chewy the Lab on January 7, 2010 at 7:30 PM
Scans will be OK with me if
1. Muslims stop..STOP getting visas to fly into our country FROM ANYWHERE in the world
2. Muslims are profiled and given extra-attention at all airports, seaports, train stations and bus-terminals
3. our borders are closed tight and all ALL illegals ( students, ppl with/without anchor-babies) are deported and their names and fingerprints flagged for no re-entry into USA
TSA cannot keep us safe, under the current system
macncheez on January 7, 2010 at 7:34 PM
You really want to explode ur azz???? howabout’ putting the explosives in your teeth? Clamp down real hard and, BOOM! How are we going to screen that????
Profile, I say, Profile!
Chewy the Lab on January 7, 2010 at 7:34 PM
How about we just copy Israel’s method of screening down to a gnat’s ass? How many problems do they have with their planes?
alohapundit on January 7, 2010 at 7:35 PM
Ben Franklin said if you will give up liberty for security you deserve neither. If Americans are willing to give up the most personal parts of themselves to “feel” secure, there are methods around this system too, then where is the line? Why not tie us down on airlines, naked and drugged? At what point will we say enough is enough. Hand me a taser before I get on board and I’ll handle myself. Heck I’ll buy my own on Amazon. I am a citizen.
dagney on January 7, 2010 at 7:35 PM
I do, especially if I am the screener and MM is the screeney.
Well I am just sayin”.
No I do think they should screen.
TheSitRep on January 7, 2010 at 7:35 PM
It’s like the things in the back of comics are real now. But like the computers of old, this thing is the size of a small room. Just think in 20 years X-Ray galsses will be a reallity!!!
- The Cat
P.S. Plus Michelle knows that she will be high on the list for Freedom of Information Act requests.
MirCat on January 7, 2010 at 7:37 PM
Dang, sorry to be posting so much but…
Howabout your name begins with a vowel, you get to hold on your lap(your choice):
A)A cute little ole’ Vietnamese Potbellied pig,
B)A package of bacon
C)A ham sandwich with mayo, lettuce, tomato and a side of fries.
If my name is, “Adam”, I’d opt for “C”
Chewy the Lab on January 7, 2010 at 7:40 PM
There’s the operative question; if a buttplug bomb (thinking “Man on Fire” movie here – and didn’t a recent Saudi bomber do this?) won’t show up on that, then it’s not worth it.
Midas on January 7, 2010 at 7:40 PM
She’s wrong on this one.
Yes the bureaucracy should do a better job , but thats a pipe dream.
the_nile on January 7, 2010 at 7:41 PM
Buttsniffer Czar to the rescue.
the_nile on January 7, 2010 at 7:43 PM
MM is right, as always. It’s not the virtual strip searches per se that are the problem.
The real problem is that the TSA will require that this be used on everyone EXCEPT Muslims. Because, as every liberal knows, that is the only belief system in the world that finds this sort of thing offensive.
logis on January 7, 2010 at 7:45 PM
Ever the capitalist.
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2010 at 7:48 PM
I agree. TSA is far too inept for this kind of power.
AnninCA on January 7, 2010 at 7:51 PM
I live 500 miles (8 hours drive) from Atlanta. Whenever I need or want to go there, I drive.
bugsy on January 7, 2010 at 7:51 PM
I depart from Michelle on this one. I say scan, inspect with dogs, profile and in some cases a body cavity search.
But that’s just me.
Why? What precautions would you want taken if your Mom or daughter was on board?
FireBlogger on January 7, 2010 at 7:52 PM
I don’t know what the answer is, but I don’t think it’s this. We’ve created a nightmare in our airports already. As soon as we start scanning everyone, that’s when AQ thinks of another way to kill Americans that doesn’t involve airplanes at all.
scalleywag on January 7, 2010 at 7:52 PM
I am in 100% agreement with Michelle.
Shouldn’t we know who the threats are before they even enter the airport? I’m sure another smart HA reader or two already said this, but what is to stop a bomber from blowing himself up while in line, before being detected? Shoot, now that I said that, the scanners will be set up at the airport entrance doors.
My resolution for 2010 – drive everywhere! (2011 and 2012, too.)
gopmom on January 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM
These scanners would NOT have spotted this bomb. These ‘horses have already left the barn’ fixes are for yesterday’s plots at best. The next strategy will be a bomb in the anus, the mouth, or even surgically implanted. It even could be a modified laptop battery or casing. Or something even more devious. This whack-a-mole approach cannot prevent all attacks. Maybe nothing can.
GnuBreed on January 7, 2010 at 7:55 PM
Drudge has a story about a whacky TSA agent being arrested at LAX:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/TSA-Security-Agent-Arrested-at-LAX-80858482.html
jgapinoy on January 7, 2010 at 8:01 PM
Rahm and Geitner already have jobs though.
BierManVA on January 7, 2010 at 8:08 PM
I’m with Allaphundit. Use the imagers. Do the best you can to train people to operate them. Use this technology in tandem with excluding fliers on watch and no-fly lists.
The issue is the balance between supposed loss of civil liberties and the increased safety from a terrorist act. I don’t think this is even a close call. Do the scanners really invade our civil liberties any more than the horrible experience of flying nowdays?
As it is, when flying you feel like you’re in danger of being detained at any minute by the totalitarian flight attendants. This was a problem since before 9/11–the fear that you were going to piss off the underpaid, bitter flight attendant who could ruin your travel plans on a whim. Now, you feel like you’re sneaking into the Soviet Union using a false identity to steal a state-of-the art combat aircraft. At any minute, someone will come up to you and demand “Papers, please” and it’s the last time you will see your family.
So what’s the harm in one more security measure? I don’t care if the screener knows that I don’t work out regularly. I’m going to start next month, I swear . . .
An Objectivist on January 7, 2010 at 8:11 PM
How does the closet transvestite community feel?
It’s ok. We can trust Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Hillary and Obama to keep our naked images safe.
I am sure, too, they will have the purest of the pure watching the monitors in those darkened isolated rooms, viewing those naked images of adults and children. The purest of the pure.
JellyToast on January 7, 2010 at 8:14 PM
How about we profile the type of people that are doing this?
Male.
Middle Eastern descent.
18-30 years old.
Stop harassing Grandma’s and Kids.
THEY AREN’T THE ONES. HELLO.
Oh and if they are offended by being profiled, TOO DAMN BAD. Go back to your own crap hole country and STAY THERE.
RealMc on January 7, 2010 at 8:19 PM
One thing that the scanners will do is cause AQ to change once again. Like blowing up the airport itself. Maybe do something like Newark’s semi-false alarm and then wonder into the crowd and yell Alla snack bar and ? there goes life as we know it in America if not the whole world. One would need a pass just to go to the store.
Bad place to go but, it could still happen unless they profile all watch all.
tjexcite on January 7, 2010 at 8:19 PM
Awwe, jeeze. I feel so much better knowing that I will have to be laid bare for the TSA just so our esteemed muslim islamic terrorists can fly.
Good luck with that, Airlines. I’m driving. Or walking.
/This war is lost. Under Obama.
Key West Reader on January 7, 2010 at 8:23 PM
Privatize Security like Israel does
jp on January 7, 2010 at 8:26 PM
I wonder if there will be religious exemptions? Or priveleged exemptions (like will Michele Obama have to submit to this indignity like the rest of us)? I mean, what’s the point of wearing a burka when traveling by flight? And if my neighbor doesn’t have to have her butt light up in dayglo blue, why should I have to be completely humiliated and stripped of all (clothes) dignity?
Honestly, call me a prude, but I’ve spent my whole life being the proper lady, being very selective who sees my naked butt. I’m to give modesty up? And I could care less about security if I have to give up my values this much. They’ve won! Not a bomb dropped!
And you bet as soon as the people allow this indignity, they’ll be posting these at border checkpoints… then where else? WalMart exits? At what point will Americans say “This is unacceptable!”? I mean, some guy was arrested today for running in the nude near the WH, but nude pics at airports is ok?! We’ve lost all perspective and we’re being herded (soon to be culled).
jusgottabeme on January 7, 2010 at 8:27 PM
What if Imaging sees a Tampon string hanging? Is that probable cause to think its really a bomb fuse???
seriously
jp on January 7, 2010 at 8:28 PM
Agreed. MM is off base here.
Hell, scan us. I’ve been through the damn things a number of times. Quick, painless, and no snickering security person anywhere in sight.
Geez, do you who are opposed honestly thing that the TSA or security folks at foreign airports will sit and ogle the images like some 13 year old with a Playboy?
Even if the occasional one does, so what. I want every feasible security effort made. Including profiling.
BacaDog on January 7, 2010 at 8:30 PM
Welcome to Obamaland.
Key West Reader on January 7, 2010 at 8:31 PM
It will be dismissed as a pony tail with the tagline CJofLGF. Move along.
Key West Reader on January 7, 2010 at 8:32 PM
I was directed into the body scanner at RDU during my trip home to L.A. after the holidays.
It made the fourth time I’ve been stopped for additional screening during the past 2 years.
I was given the option of a pat-down but opted for the scanner instead as I was a bit curious about it.
My only complaint with both is that neither are located in a “private screening area” and you’re basically forced into standing there being groped by a total stranger while other passengers ogle at you with suspicious looks.
It’s embarrassing to say the least.
The Ugly American on January 7, 2010 at 8:34 PM
Who will be posting them? The images aren’t saved for Gods sake.
BacaDog on January 7, 2010 at 8:36 PM
As long as they give you the pat-down option, the celeb “this will end up on the internet” argument doesn’t fly.
Same with children.
The Ugly American on January 7, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Beat ya! LOL
alohapundit on January 7, 2010 at 8:43 PM
(Sigh) There goes the rolled up sock I’ve been putting into the crotch of my pants for years …
Rod on January 7, 2010 at 8:45 PM
TSA was and is window-dressing.
That’s all. Nothing more.
TSA hasn’t saved one life. They just make traveling a hassle for those who play by the rules.
As Captain Crispy Crotch proved, the answer isn’t in using technology to find bombs or nail clippers or knitting needles*. The answer is in finding the people who are determined to kill their fellow human beings.
Mew
* Friend of mine has glass needles. She says they’re much smoother than any metal needles she’s used. Wonder how they’d show up on a scanner…
acat on January 7, 2010 at 9:11 PM
No to TSA imaging. Two excellent articles in on by Steve Chapman and David Harsanyi on why scanners are a waste of money and time (in addition to privacy violators) and one for profiling.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/07/the-naked-truth-about-airport
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/06/flying-with-the-enemy
I agree with JP on privatizing security. Less government intrusion and general cost to taxpayers as opposed to users of the service.
Let the market decide. Some private airlines can using imaging, others profiling . . . and let people decide where they feel safer.
Firefly_76 on January 7, 2010 at 9:11 PM
Michelle HAD confidence in the TSA?
GarandFan on January 7, 2010 at 9:13 PM
In a better world, MM would head the TSA, or even be S of State. Some good sense is what we need; so simple, would go so far; so lacking.
paul1149 on January 7, 2010 at 9:31 PM
Coulter weighed in similarly on The O’Reilly Factor a few days ago…
D2Boston on January 7, 2010 at 9:41 PM
Public place.
Pa pa / Pa pa / pa pa razzi?
BowHuntingTexas on January 7, 2010 at 9:55 PM
Don’t worry. TSA is NOT going to use this thing on any Muslims.
logis on January 7, 2010 at 10:10 PM
I’m not for the body scanners either.
Why should my 70 year old Mom go through a body scanner? Remind me of the last 70 year old Caucasian suicide bomber please?
Additionally – Obama has done nothing but encourage more suicide bombers by promising them access to our Constitutional protections and legal system. If the Prez don’t have the nads to fight terror – why should I show mine on a body scanner?
Hey … once AQ starts shoving plastic explosives up their rectum – what’ll we do then?
Some non-obtrusive rectal cavity searches in the name of airline security.
FIGHT THE PROBLEM NOT THE SYMPTOMS.
HondaV65 on January 7, 2010 at 10:16 PM
What is the point of spending millions of dollars on such technology,when it clearly does not address the real issue?The issue isn’t “what is someone carrying in his underwear”,the issue is “is this person going to try to bring down the plane.”I think that was MM’s point.
I understand how some of the commenters here feel that another layer of security is a good thing,but that reminds me of the argument for air-bags in cars.We all pay the added expense brought on by irresponible drivers,so they can be even more irresponsible.
This is typical of how our messed up government works.
Instead of looking at a problem logically and implementing procedures based on effectiveness,we instead impliment one ineffective procedure on top of another until we have forgotten what the real problem was in the first place.Then
through complacency and reliance on technology,the whole system becomes a joke.
DDT on January 7, 2010 at 10:24 PM
I’m not saying the TSA is faultless, but remember, they have to get it right 100% of the time, the terrorists only once. The problem with a job like the TSA is most of the time it is mind numbingly boring, kind of like a deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. It is easy to get complacent. An answer to this would be shorter shifts/quicker rotations and rotating in and out of different duties to keep the interest level up. This is what I did with my Marines for patrols and guard. It doesn’t matter how professional you are,boredom will always trump discipline eventually and you get shoddy workmanship. Machines and technology cannnot replace a sharp mind to catch the little details.
gator70 on January 7, 2010 at 10:25 PM
BUSINESS OPP: Seeking Venture Capitalist to fund soon-to-be booming business of lead undergarments. Customers already lined up waiting.
Signed,
Recently Certified Amtrak Travel Agent
jusgottabeme on January 7, 2010 at 10:36 PM
Has anybody determined if these things can cause cancer, especially if you are a frequent flyer? If they don’t know about cell phones and brain cancer, what can a whole body scan do to you?
Kissmygrits on January 7, 2010 at 10:51 PM
These scanners would not catch what a trained sniffer dog can.
Since the underwear is rendered “invisible” by this device, the materials used in the X-mas day terror attempt would probably have been unseen by the machine.
Plus, the rectal suppository bomb (as was tried against a Saudi official) would not be caught by these scanners, so that’s the al Qaeda workaround.
But a sniffer dog would detect even that kind of trick.
More ten thousand dollar dogs, fewer million dollar machines.
profitsbeard on January 7, 2010 at 11:33 PM
We need these body scanners on capitol hill and not the airports. These scanners violate child porn laws. We need to take a stand and say enough is enough. No body scanners!
nazo311 on January 7, 2010 at 11:48 PM
Whoooo hooo…Michelle is back on TV!!!!
As for the whole body scans, to pregnant women and children,
may be a problem….especially with radiation exposure regulations.
dec5 on January 8, 2010 at 12:49 AM
The full-body scan issue is one of those things that bugs me for reasons I can’t explain. Yes, I understand that security must come first, and yes, I understand that certain safety measures are needed and yada yada, but the whole idea of someone using technology to look under my clothing…. creeps me out. That’s like one of the final boundaries of privacy. So yeah, maybe I can’t demonstrate sound reasoning, but neither can I force myself through logic to accept this.
I tend to ascribe to the view that, IF the TSA, CIA and other organizations were doing their jobs elsewhere, full-body scans would not be necessary.
Also the slippery-slope argument applies here: once we let the government look under our clothes for safety reasons, where do we draw the line?
Animator Girl on January 8, 2010 at 1:15 AM
What a great idea!!!
Ed Laskie on January 8, 2010 at 3:39 AM
I agree along with this
These questions about how much your income is by TSA is rude and lame. TSA is poorly trained. Lie detection is trainable.
It is easy, once highly trained to do so, to detect someone who should be further screened. Everyone on the bigger list should be screened. A dog sniffing your ass is good idea.
Ed Laskie on January 8, 2010 at 3:51 AM
I wonder what the difference is between the carbon footprint of 300 people flying 500 miles and the carbon footprint of 300 cars driving 500 miles…..
percysunshine on January 8, 2010 at 6:29 AM
I’m with Michelle on this one.
Incompetence seems to be the rule.
So far, I have never seen an image, and there are many of them out there, that would have shown the package of explosives in his, ahem, private area.
All those images only show a small black spot there, all of them.
How would that have helped stop the underwear bomber?
Further, with all the other invasions of privacy going on, how long do you think it would really be until celebrity pics start being released anomynously on the internet?
Chuck on January 8, 2010 at 6:37 AM
Yes, FBS’s are likely not constitutional. And they may well not work for people like the panty bomber.
But I need more data. Michelle? If you could get one and show us the results, I could make up my mind more easily.
???
Just sayin’…..
Squiggy on January 8, 2010 at 6:54 AM
But if the (body scanned) picture you are referring to was of Janet NappyPolitbureau, you MIGHT reach a different conclusion.
November 2, 2010
Sweet_Thang on January 8, 2010 at 7:14 AM
I know MM is your host, but the most ridiculous part of this interview was when she said the State Dept of all people was the most to blame,
uhhh wha??? State called in the CIA!! Should State have OVERRULED the frakking CIA?? Does MM see how ridiculous that is??
ginaswo on January 8, 2010 at 8:23 AM
The body scans can’t see into body cavities. Al Qaeda already has their people training to get past the scanners.
The most productive profiling to me is what El Al does – behavioral profiling with people trained in body language/odd behaviors out walking amongst the passengers.
Second, use the dogs trained to find bomb/drug/explosive matter. Use them in the terminals and then walk them down the aisles of the plane before it takes off.
I’m tired of seeing so much time spent on trying to find a guy who slipped under a rope so that he could say goodbye to his sweetie at the gate. Stupid.
Greyledge Gal on January 8, 2010 at 8:28 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »