Finally: The “don’t touch my junk” guy speaks

posted at 7:16 pm on November 15, 2010 by Allahpundit

If you don’t know who he is — and given the immense outcry online, I can’t believe anyone doesn’t — the AP’s got you covered. Two clips here, one of the man himself and the other of Shep Smith in high dudgeon, but perhaps it’s time to think less about alternate procedures and more about … big-picture solutions.

The Republicans control the House of Representatives and are bracing for a long battle over the President’s health care proposal. In the spirit of bipartisanship and sanity, I propose that the first thing on the chopping block should be an ineffective organization that wastes money, violates our rights, and encourages us to make decisions that imperil our safety. I’m talking about the Transportation Security Administration.

Bipartisan support should be immediate. For fiscal conservatives, it’s hard to come up with a more wasteful agency than the TSA. For privacy advocates, eliminating an organization that requires you to choose between a nude body scan or genital groping in order to board a plane should be a no-brainer.

But won’t that compromise safety? I doubt it. The airlines have enormous sums of money riding on passenger safety, and the notion that a government bureaucracy has better incentives to provide safe travels than airlines with billions of dollars worth of capital and goodwill on the line strains credibility.

Give the airlines control over their own security and the marketplace can work its magic. There’ll be the “safe” airlines, which cost a bit more but employ El Al screening procedures (assuming that those can be scaled to an American market); the “average” airlines, which give you routine security at a lower price; the cut-rate “risky” airlines, which give you a metal detector and little else, thereby ensuring that every flight is an adventure; and of course the TSA-style “enhanced patdown” airlines (let’s call them the “beta male’s choice”). I’d love to see it happen, if only to get a sense of how many of the people who’ve been tweeting over the past few days that airport screening procedures haven’t stopped a single terrorist since 9/11, that the passengers are the only effective line of defense, etc etc, would choose to fly Risk Air. Big savings to be had, after all. What could go wrong?




Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

take the scan or take the grope, next time a flight blows up and it’s because they relaxed the rules this guy is culpable in their deaths. Your penis is that interesting, stop pretending that it has the head of a cobra and is a key to your secret identity.

Zekecorlain on November 15, 2010 at 8:54 PM

wait…wait you plan is to have a multi-tiered security system that lets the poor die while the rich live. Gosh that’s very egalitarian. You should like an aristocrat. We don’t have those in this country. Self Regulation worked great with Enron and the financial market, what could possibly go wrong…

Zekecorlain on November 15, 2010 at 8:56 PM

If I can go to the doctor’s for a physical, he’s gonna touch my junk…big whooop. I ain’t got nuttin’ to be ashamed of.

JetBoy on November 15, 2010 at 7:41 PM

You’re not a woman…do you know how many women and children have been molested? Now they are faced with facing that memory while waiting to board a plane.
Funny how you think it is only “shame” why people are revolting against this.

right2bright on November 15, 2010 at 8:44 PM

You make a great point, right2bright!

Also, to my understanding, in the past, under various thread comments, jetboy has declared that he is a homosexual.

right2bright,

Even on this comment page jetboy betrayed his enjoyment or propensity and exposure to such treatment as he indicated in this post, found above:

The way I see it, go ahead and body scan me…pat me down, it’ll be like a Saturday night out for me. If I can go to the doctor’s for a physical, he’s gonna touch my junk…big whooop. I ain’t got nuttin’ to be ashamed of.

JetBoy on November 15, 2010 at 7:41 PM

If that is the case, he may well not be as offended by being groped by strangers and other males as the rest of the male population, and also, and especially for parents who don’t want their toddlers, preteens, and teenaged daughters, sons, etc., abused, or even the couples who don’t want their wives fondled and groped, or even their grandparents to undergo such.

William2006 on November 15, 2010 at 8:57 PM

a one-second back-of-the-hand inner thigh tap.

Allahpundit on November 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM

You’re not keeping up with the program. The ‘enhanced’ pat downs involve checking the contents of your underwear and if you are female of your bra with the palm of the hand.

ProfessorMiao on November 15, 2010 at 9:07 PM

JetBoy on November 15, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Why do I have a hard time picturing you defending John Ashcroft while explaining that the Patriot Act is going to make us safer?

John Deaux on November 15, 2010 at 9:14 PM

john bono on November 15, 2010 at 8:36 PM

FANTASTIC response john. very well put, I applaud you on your excellent post sir.

If I may also add, I think that AP is also confusing several different groups when he is talking about those opposed to our current model as overly intrusive, unwieldy, ineffective and pointless.

Group 1 are people like John and myself (and likely, most of the Hot Air posters). People who want safe, effective airport security using a method similar to the El Al method. Many of these people are also Security experts and consultants. They often have first hand experience with “penetration testing” and know that our current security model is wholly inadequate.

Group 2 are the hippies/anarchists. The types that, during a routine traffic stop, will bust out with “Why are you hassling me, PIG?” No reasoning with these people, they just hate authority figures.

There are many other sub-groups, including the terrorists themselves, who I’m sure would love having NO security at all. But the two primary groups are the ones I’ve delineated above.

I think AP is conflating the two in his head when they are very different groups of people.

wearyman on November 15, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Did the workers in WTC buy a ticket?

That was solved by making the cockpit doors armored. The rest of the problem can be solved by arming and training the pilots.

Abdulmutallab, had he succeeded, would’ve had a body count on the ground. If an airplane hits a downtown — and some airports are very close to their downtown — then that body count would be high. And that’s if arming doors and pilots is universal and foolproof.

That said, people who whine about security generally whine about effectiveness and inconvenience, not that it’s happening at all. I understand the temptation to bring the free market into the equation, but one crash after the free market switch, and not only are there going to be hundreds dead, but free marketeers are going to take a hit too.

calbear on November 15, 2010 at 9:15 PM

These TSA threads have been some of the most entertaining of late. I especially enjoy all the goobers making threats to kick ass and take names of TSA employees if their wives and children were subjected to pat downs. Sure you would, big guy. Sure you would.

I said it in another thread and I’ll say it again: If you have a problem with body scanners or pat downs, then don’t fly. You have a choice.

And it does no good to bitch and moan about it to AP because ain’t nothing changing. The powers that be are not going to risk another 9/11 by doing away with body scans or patdowns to keep 3 year- olds from crying. Again, if you don’t like it, then you can ride the bus.

They are also not going to stand up to CAIR and subject Muslims to extra scrutiny like the Isrealis. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen. It’s not gonna happen when the executive branch is controlled by Democrats. It’s not gonna happen when the executive branch is controlled by Republicans. Until we decide to recognize that Islam (not Islamists, not “radical” Islam) is the problem and treat it’s adherents accordingly the nuns, grandmothers, cops, members of the armed services, and kids are going to get “randomly” selected for extra scrutiny at a rate mathematically proven to ensure that Muslims aren’t subjected to extra scrutiny at a rate higher than their portion of the general population.

Dukeboy01 on November 15, 2010 at 9:17 PM

I didn’t realize that the outrage was over lack of choice of security.

I thought the outrage was over a (very personal) intrusion by the government … when this intrusion probably isn’t that effective. In fact, there are probably better ways of catching would be terrorists.

What about terrorists using the internet? Is the solution to simply shut it down?

The truth is we can’t look to government to solve everything, but we can agree that TSA isn’t exactly a model in efficiency and that these patdowns/scannings are at the border of what is acceptable – if not way over. We should expect better of some version of TSA.

What next? Random cavity searches?

MeatHeadinCA on November 15, 2010 at 9:18 PM

I see that these lawyers are discussing a hypothetical 13y.o. or 12y.o. girl … are they unaware of the video of the 3y.o. who was patted-down by TSA?
.
The argument that purchasing an airline ticket results in giving up some rights … true, but not ALL rights, nor even most. No Federal official has the authority, right, whatever, to suspend laws in peacetime, certainly without due cause.
.
It may be that suspicious behavior, like paying cash for a one-way ticket, with no luggage, should cause suspicion, and that setting off a metal detector should result in further examination, and certainly, testing positive for explosive residue should sound alerts.
.
But merely showing up for a plane trip is not cause.
.
Neither is refusing to go through additional screening procedures, well beyond those ~80% of all other passengers go through, without probable cause.
.
Standing up to the Feds is necessary in this case. Videotaping every incident, to protect others is now required.
.
The Inverse Rodney King Incident video is just waiting to be made.
.
Make sure you’re ready.
.

Arbalest on November 15, 2010 at 9:35 PM

You would think this would be one of those issues that most liberals/liberatrians/conservatives/blacks/white/asian/straight/gay people could come to agreement on.
The fact we can’t even on agree such a blatant invasion of privacy makes me very pessimistic.
I mean if the israeli’s don’t need to do this why do we. Actually this is one of those issues that if you have to debate it at all just makes you do a facepalm.

kangjie on November 15, 2010 at 9:38 PM

The way I see it, go ahead and body scan me…pat me down, it’ll be like a Saturday night out for me. If I can go to the doctor’s for a physical, he’s gonna touch my junk…big whooop. I ain’t got nuttin’ to be ashamed of.

JetBoy on November 15, 2010 at 7:41 PM

1. Remind me never to never hang out with Jetboy.

2. I don’t have anything to be ashamed of either. It doesn’t however mean I will allow just anyone to cop a feel. That is reserved for who I CHOOSE.

portlandon on November 15, 2010 at 9:52 PM

This scanner wouldn’t have been able to identify the bomb that was in the Underwear bombers crotch.

So why are these scanners being pushed so hard for use?

portlandon on November 15, 2010 at 9:53 PM

SgtSVJones,

In which airport was Airport Security PRIVATE BEFORE 9/11?

The FAA – Federal Aviation Administration handled security before 9/11, and it was a joke, unreliable, and allowed 19 Islamofascist militant Jihadis to board 4 aircraft and slaughter, burn to death, crush, cut, stab, etc., around 3,000 men, women, children, and babies, let alone destroy billions of dollars worth of property, buildings, aircraft, etc.

It has been many decades since any private airport security has been employed in major US airports.

William2006 on November 15, 2010 at 8:36 PM

My apologies, as I said I was 15 on 9/11/01 and I hadn’t flown in years….prior to 9/11 I had last flown when I was about 8 years old.

So the security was handled by the FAA-and not private companies LICENSED by the FAA? Just checking to be sure.

SgtSVJones on November 15, 2010 at 9:54 PM

The next words out of his mouth should have been : “don’t taze me bro’”!

Fuquay Steve on November 15, 2010 at 9:57 PM

For those advocating El Al techniques, you should be aware they do a lot more than profile. Years ago, El Al apparently didn’t like something about the looks of my brothers (Americans, ages 16 and 20 at the time).

They were pulled off their flight, interrogated for hours, strip-searched and cavity-searched. They came home pretty shaken.

Cara C on November 15, 2010 at 9:58 PM

So why are these scanners being pushed so hard for use?

portlandon on November 15, 2010 at 9:53 PM

.
There are rumors that high-powered lobbyists for the various manufacturers went to work on Congress … the “buy” is apparently political.
.
Perhaps these scanners would’ve caught the Underwear Bomber. But there has already been an attempt on a Saudi royal, by a guy wearing(?) an explosive butt-plug.
.
These scanners are incapable of catching such a device.
.
Therefore, there’s been reason for some time not to buy them; the attach M.O. has already rendered them ineffective.
.
But the lobbyists are not so easily defeated.

Arbalest on November 15, 2010 at 10:01 PM

Security was PRIVATE BEFORE 9/11. Why the hell we EVER had to make it a government-run thing is beyond me.

SgtSVJones on November 15, 2010 at 7:41 PM

Maybe because planes can be flown into government buildings, military sites, nuclear reactors, tall private sector buildings, stadiums, etc…

nottakingsides on November 15, 2010 at 10:18 PM

How bout a trench coat with no pants and you can simply flash em, if their really into that stuff.

serendip2b on November 15, 2010 at 10:52 PM

The next words out of his mouth should have been : “don’t taze me bro’”!

Fuquay Steve on November 15, 2010 at 9:57 PM

“Don’t taze my junk, bro!”

James on November 15, 2010 at 11:06 PM

For a skeptical guy, Allahpundit, you are far too credulous at the utility of the universal scan/grope procedures.

Targeted “extra” examination and interviews should be used, because that works and the other is no protection and too much invasion.

Given a choice between “I will check the manifest and interview and target higher-risk passengers for scrutiny” in addition to the odd random check,

and “scan or grope” airline, I would go with the former and so would everyone else, not because off convenience but because the former is safer.

At minimum, persons should be allowed to leave if they decide at last minute no scan or grope is worth the price of a ticket.

SarahW on November 15, 2010 at 11:19 PM

In the 2000 how many of us would have believed a credible debate would occur about the following: “Are people refusing to allow a Federal ‘security officer’ to squeeze their genitals being unreasonable?”

The fact that we are having this debate provides proof we’ve already lost. Resistance is futile … Government employees believe our bodies are the government’s property, and we only have the rights the grant us. Welcome to 1984.

Perfesser on November 15, 2010 at 11:28 PM

Great points here. CNN and other media have great stories on Israeli security procedures that need to be adopted here

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199—israelification-high-security-little-bother

bayam on November 15, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Even on this comment page jetboy betrayed his enjoyment or propensity and exposure to such treatment as he indicated in this post, found above:

The way I see it, go ahead and body scan me…pat me down, it’ll be like a Saturday night out for me. If I can go to the doctor’s for a physical, he’s gonna touch my junk…big whooop. I ain’t got nuttin’ to be ashamed of.

JetBoy on November 15, 2010 at 7:41 PM

If that is the case, he may well not be as offended by being groped by strangers and other males as the rest of the male population, and also, and especially for parents who don’t want their toddlers, preteens, and teenaged daughters, sons, etc., abused, or even the couples who don’t want their wives fondled and groped, or even their grandparents to undergo such.

William2006 on November 15, 2010 at 8:57 PM

Now, let’s turn that around a little bit. What if it’s Jetboy that is the one doing the screening? [or someone like him?]. Or equivalent orientation for the ladies.

How’s that make you feel about this supposed “necessary” procedure?

IMO, the only place this kind of search should be allowed is when a properly executed search warrant for probable cause is in place, or in the case of a law officer, when a felonious stop and/or arrest has been made, again with probable cause.

Now, tell me again why it’s OK for government officials, with no probable cause other than the fact that someone wants to board an airplane, are allowed to conduct a highly invasive, personal touching of the genital area while it is undesirable and a violation of civil liberties for a peace officer making a lawful stop to inquire about the immigration status of the person being stopped? Especially given the fact that if anyone else performed such touching it would be considered sexual harassment?

AZfederalist on November 15, 2010 at 11:48 PM

It was obvious from the beginning that these scanners were a farce, the only question being did it result from incompetence, pork or graft? If it was a “stimulus” program then it falls into at least two of those categories.

When we scrap these scanners we’ll need to make sure they don’t fall into the hands of totalitarian regimes. (Or are they already being sold to them, I wonder?)

FloatingRock on November 15, 2010 at 11:51 PM

I kind of liked it when the National Guard was in our airports right after 9-11. I vote that we use our tax dollars to bring them back and put a Stop Order on the molecular restructuring naked scanners and tell TSA to keep their fingers out of our business. Oh hell, I’m buying an rv and forgetting about this flying nonsense!

redwhiteblue on November 16, 2010 at 12:03 AM

The truth is that whoever was responsible for improving these scanners probably knew how easy they were to beat. That suggests to me that pork or graft are the more plausible explanation. That being the case, the same greed and politics that motivated the purchase of so many useless scanners in the first place hints to me, were I to guess, that Iran and NK are probably the only countries for which sale is not approved.

FloatingRock on November 16, 2010 at 12:04 AM

Improving = approving

FloatingRock on November 16, 2010 at 12:05 AM

The truth is that whoever was responsible for improving these scanners probably knew how easy they were to beat.

Point being that it would have required an extraordinary degree of incompetence, on the part of whoever is responsible for buying these scanners, not to have realize how easy it was to beat these scanners and how offensive they are.

FloatingRock on November 16, 2010 at 12:16 AM

You’re not a woman…do you know how many women and children have been molested? Now they are faced with facing that memory while waiting to board a plane.

right2bright

I think we should get rid of plane travel altogether. Do you know how many people are afraid of flying, or had a bad flying experience? Now they are faced with that fear or bad memory while waiting to board a plane. It’s just not right.

xblade on November 16, 2010 at 12:18 AM

My father in law just bought a motor home and had to fly to Baltimore to pick it up. When he went through security he warned them he had a steel pin in his leg. They made him go through the medal detectors twice then through the body scanner THEN THEY STILL GAVE HIM THE FULL BODY PAT DOWN. They were just being a pain in the butt. Why should he have been both groped and scanned?

boomer on November 16, 2010 at 12:22 AM

I think we should get rid of plane travel altogether. Do you know how many people are afraid of flying, or had a bad flying experience? Now they are faced with that fear or bad memory while waiting to board a plane. It’s just not right.

xblade on November 16, 2010 at 12:18 AM

That gets my vote for most asinine statement of the thread.

AZfederalist on November 16, 2010 at 12:22 AM

At some point, someone in line somewhere is going to get frustrated with this, and just strip their ass down to the buff, and attempt to pass a screener and board a plane.

…and they’ll be arrested. For indecent exposure (or something; whatever).

If we’re lucky, than someone else, seeing this, will strip down too. And then another, and another.

You gonna subject us all to undue search? Really?

And the point will be clear: you gonna arrest us all? For some asinine, ineffective process that is never, ever going to be effective while the one effective procedure – FRICKING PROFILE THE PERPS – is ignored?

Screw this politically correct bullshit.

…and “contract, my ass“.

I sign a contract that says “I hereby willingly give up due process” …that contract is unenforceable, and is already invalid.

There’s some shit you cannot sign away.

…and neither can anyone else (well, without a consti-fricking-tutional crisis).

Which, hell, maybe we’re having.

davisbr on November 16, 2010 at 12:49 AM

Security was PRIVATE BEFORE 9/11. Why the hell we EVER had to make it a government-run thing is beyond me.

SgtSVJones on November 15, 2010 at 7:41 PM

The Dems won the PR battle. Rep. tried to get it private, but when Dems go on TV and say the Rep dont value your safety, that they want your children to die at the hands of the greedy private sector, it is hard to not bend and then break to that.

WoosterOh on November 16, 2010 at 12:56 AM

wait…wait you plan is to have a multi-tiered security system that lets the poor die while the rich live.

Zekecorlain on November 15, 2010 at 8:56 PM

No, the poor don’t fly. Air travel is a pure luxury good.

alwaysfiredup on November 16, 2010 at 1:23 AM

Sorry, guys, I was recently patted down thoroughly and offensively. The experience left me shaken (literally trembling in distress), insulted and angry no matter how much I told myself to get over it. I knew enough not to make a fuss at customs. Being stranded in a foreign country, no matter how friendly, is not a plus. But, really, me a threat! A gray-haired, disabled elderly woman! Give me a break! I tell you I would have willingly broken that pat-downer’s arm as she made me stand on one leg and then the other. When I started to stumble because I could not perform, she said I could hold onto the rail. Bleeping TSA!

Mae on November 16, 2010 at 2:10 AM

WoosterOh on November 16, 2010 at 12:56 AM

Sad thing was when I was 15 (the age I was when 9/11 occurred) I believed that crap, until I actually said it to my dad, in about October/November ’01 and he simply replied

“Well [my real name here] the MVA [DMV] is run by the government, how’s that working out for you son?”

Funny how father’s are right that way………

SgtSVJones on November 16, 2010 at 2:39 AM

I started flying for business in September. God help me to get to the airport earlier and to remain silent whilst in the hands of the TSA, pun intended. I think it’s more effective to make my voice heard later on, to someone with some authority.

Last is First on November 16, 2010 at 2:41 AM

next time a flight blows up and it’s because they relaxed the rules this guy is culpable in their deaths

What a pathetic and servile attitude. How dare his nanny-state-worship fall short of your debased groveling? How dare he try to put his human rights ahead of your irrationally disproportionate fears of airline terrorism?

Mark Jaquith on November 16, 2010 at 3:35 AM

The point is that there are few frequent travelers who are opposed to any and all screening.

People like Napolitano who make the either-or argument are setting a straw man to knock down. It’s a pathetic argument.

The current Hobbson’s Choice screening – X-Ray or grope – has simply gone too far for many of us. It’s that simple.

Drained Brain on November 15, 2010 at 7:51 PM-

Thank you. +1
-
How many of the “elite” will get a pass on the new screening?

diogenes on November 16, 2010 at 5:27 AM

There’ll be the “safe” airlines, which cost a bit more but employ El Al screening procedures (assuming that those can be scaled to an American market); the “average” airlines, which give you routine security at a lower price; the cut-rate “risky” airlines, which give you a metal detector and little else, thereby ensuring that every flight is an adventure; and of course the TSA-style “enhanced patdown” airlines (let’s call them the “beta male’s choice”).

Give me the airline that forces every passenger to eat a strip of bacon before getting on the plane.

Ronnie on November 16, 2010 at 7:56 AM

So why are these scanners being pushed so hard for use?

portlandon on November 15, 2010 at 9:53 PM

For all the usual reasons. IOW, follow the money . . .

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/_Naked-scanners__-Lobbyists-join-the-war-on-terror-1540901-107548388.html

AZCoyote on November 16, 2010 at 8:14 AM

“No Muslim, no cry.”

Akzed on November 16, 2010 at 9:20 AM

Akzed on November 16, 2010 at 9:20 AM

Ya’man +1

brtex on November 16, 2010 at 9:49 AM

For all the people claiming these intrusive govt searches are necessary, fine. Get undressed, take pictures of yourself naked, and post them on the internet.

DngrMse on November 16, 2010 at 9:53 AM

The main problem with having different levels of security is that once terrorists have taken over a plane, they can hit anything they want with it.

I’d prefer the airlines and airports pitch in together to hire a good security firm.

hawksruleva on November 16, 2010 at 11:22 AM

next time a flight blows up and it’s because they relaxed the rules this guy is culpable in their deaths

How many bombers have been stopped by the TSA? We can’t even stop bombers when the bomber’s DADDY CALLS IN A WARNING.

That’s a big part of the outrage. Reasonable people know that searches of random flyers don’t make them safer. For example, explain to me why a SINGLE PILOT should ever be searched. After their groping, they get behind the stick of a large bomb, filled with people. Who cares if they’re carrying a pocketknife? In fact, I’d be happy if EVERY pilot on duty was carrying a side arm.

hawksruleva on November 16, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Can we shout out to TSA that we just don’t like the nude scanner and genital pat down but we recommend instead the system that Israel has in place? Profiling, screening weeks, months before going on a flight.

shick on November 16, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Stagecoach days: what happened then?
Stagecoach company hired armed men to accompany it.
Passengers were also often armed & assisted in the defense of fellow passengers & drivers.
If we were allowed our 2nd Am. rights, none of this would be an issue.
I want to carry my gun. And I should be allowed to.
This old west shoot ‘em up idea people have of back then simply did not occur with the abandon that is presented in the movies.
The more people that carry guns, the safer we all are.
If you were a criminal, you’d think twice before robbing an armed populace.
I imagine this is one reason why terrorists don’t attack places in WY, MT, & the Dakotas. We are armed. And if not, many of us carry large knives with us.
I do.

Badger40 on November 16, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I started flying for business in September. God help me to get to the airport earlier and to remain silent whilst in the hands of the TSA, pun intended. I think it’s more effective to make my voice heard later on, to someone with some authority.

Last is First on November 16, 2010 at 2:41 AM

No, don’t stay silent. Turn your head and cough.

take the scan or take the grope, next time a flight blows up and it’s because they relaxed the rules this guy is culpable in their deaths. Your penis is that interesting, stop pretending that it has the head of a cobra and is a key to your secret identity.

Zekecorlain on November 15, 2010 at 8:54 PM

Take extra radiation, or let them grope your children. It’s for security so clearly teaching your kids the whole “bad touch” thing was wrong. Teach them to enjoy getting groped by strangers in public… or teach them how to live with cancer.

But no worries, you always have the option not to fly; until you get in line. Don’t try to back out after you’re in line, that’s a $11,000 fine.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/15/tsa-probe-scan-resistor/

And they will go after you for choosing to leave and not fly. You don’t have the right to choose not to fly; they’ll investigate the hell out of you for that.

Although to be fair in his case, the booted him, escorted him out, and are now investigating him because he left a secure area… not sure how they expected him to stay while also giving him an armed escort out.

Meh, I’m sure the TSA defenders here will explain how doing what the police tell you to do is illegal and justifies a $11,000 fine for following the instructions of the police.

gekkobear on November 16, 2010 at 12:02 PM

I wonder how many TSA employees have left or considered leaving when being told they had to either look or feel someones privates?

“I didn’t sign up for this!”

shick on November 16, 2010 at 12:04 PM

I wonder how many TSA employees have left or considered leaving when being told they had to either look or feel someones privates?

“I didn’t sign up for this!”

shick on November 16, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Brilliant minds think alike (grin).

I am happy to read your comment, shick. I also wondered the same as you, how could anyone continue to work for TSA once they aretold they will be radiating strangers and viewing their nakedness, or that they will be groping, fondling, and stroking strangers’ bodies in their most off-limits areas?

As a matter of humor and fantasy, can you imagine if they had a contingent of beautiful

William2006 on November 16, 2010 at 12:26 PM

I don’t anyone, except terrorists, has any objection to effective security measures. Nude body scans and invasive search procedures don’t qualify. Anything the TSA can come up with (after the barn door has been left open, incidentally), the terrorists will find a way around. While Tyner was being detained, interrogated, and generally hassled, how many people slipped through security undetected? Any smart terrorist is going to send someone through to create a diversion while he/she slides through the security gate without notice. A ten year old could figure out this one. Duh! The answer is to profile. Period.

College Prof on November 16, 2010 at 1:14 PM

I don’t think terrorists…
FIFM
Sorry.

College Prof on November 16, 2010 at 1:15 PM

I don’t think anyone

Yikes! I’m losing it today.
Sorry, again.

College Prof on November 16, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Fly Risk Air and you’ve theoretically got nothing to lose. The other airlines won’t catch any jihadis in screening anyway, and if anything, the passengers on Risk Air will be more proactive about funny business happening on the flight. Risk Air is an absurd example aimed at highlighting the absurdity of TSA’s most strident critics.

Allahpundit on November 15, 2010 at 7:47 PM

This is the type of demonizing that I would expect to find from the host of DailyKos, not HotAir. Like liberals, you automatically assume that the free market approach would be the riskiest.

I’ve already addressed this in another thread, that I’ll repeat here. Here is my conservative, free-market approach to airline security:

1) The airline would allow concealed carry stun guns among all passengers. In fact, I’d even consider offering temporary ones during flight, to adults who requested it. Sure you might get a few “incidents” of people wanting to zap others, but those are incidents between people, and would not involve the airline. (Just like gun manufacturers cannot get sued for providing a product that might be abused by users.) Even if a terrorist also had a stun gun, he would be unlikely to survive long against a planeload of angry passengers also wielding them.

2) I would expect the DHS to provide software tools to airlines to pre-screen customer manifests, and would expect to use it extensively. If there is even one question about a passenger, the airline could refuse service. After all, they are providing a service as a business offering. They should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If restaurants can do so for lack of shoes or shirt, why not an airline if a potential passenger has traveled to questionable destinations or hung around in questionable circles.

3) I would still employ metal detectors at entrances… but replace most of the TSA personel with explosive sniffing dogs, and their handlers.

4) Offer a $20,000 reward for any successfully apprehended terrorist, to be divided among the passengers who actively participated in apprehending them.

5) DHS would conduct undercover security probes of individual airlines and publish public ratings of the different airlines, while privately providing airlines with details regarding the probes.

Risk Air would be the liberal airline in my scenario.

dominigan on November 16, 2010 at 1:36 PM

dominigan on November 16, 2010 at 1:36 PM

I agree with you.
Great ideas.
The govt does have a duty to protect its people when considering borders.
They can’t secure the border, so how do we expect them to secure air travel?
This is why allowing passengers to carry protection is really the only way to solve this problem, along with the other ideas you presented.
Free market does not give us safe alternatives.
Often, the free market gets out of hand & gives us danger.
I still stand by my stagecoach analogy.

Badger40 on November 16, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Solution:
1. Hire male and female erotic dancers.
2. Form two lines.
3. Passengers can choose to be groped by male or female.
4. Make the pat down a lap dance.
5. Lines will immediately get long so run them through the airport bar.
6. Pay the lap dancers minimum wage plus tips.
7. Ticket sales will increase.
8. With any luck, the only ones left to scan will be the moslem terrorists!
9. Hook, line, sinker. Done.

Mr_Magoo on November 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Mr_Magoo on November 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM

LMAO!
Maybe watching NCIS tonight will give me some ideas.

Badger40 on November 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM

From Gizmodo; a heartbreaking comment from a very, very upset soldier:

This is bullshit. Complete, absolute, utter bullshit.

This is not what I fought for in Afghanistan. This is not what I fought for in Iraq. This is not what I fought for during the 6 years I wore a military uniform.

What this is, is WRONG!

If this is what it takes to keep Americans safe then the War on Terror is lost. Game over. Take down the Stars and Stripes and run a white flag up the pole. We have been defeated.

My best friend in the world died a violent, painful, bloody death; in my arms in Afghanistan. Today, I’m kind of glad he did, at least he doesn’t have to see what our country has become.

ProudPalinFan on November 16, 2010 at 5:50 PM

I like the suggestion that everyone must eat a strip of bacon before getting on the plane, and I’m a vegetarian.

Maybe a bunch of pervs could volunteer for the grope and make a big scene about enjoying it.

Maybe when taking off your shoes you could just keep going down to a speed-o.

deewhybee on November 16, 2010 at 7:06 PM

The methods that TSA is forced to employ is a direct result of the irrational objections to profiling of any sort. It would make sense to use the tactics that the Israelis use and do behavioral screening by trained experts, for example. But that requires subjective evaluations and that is something that bureaucrats are incapable of managing or conducting.

So, the same rules must be forced upon everyone, be it a little old lady or a 3yo child. And since we have our lessons learned from the the “shoe bomber”, the “liquid bombers”, and of course the “junk bomber”, we now screen for each of these types of attack. It doesn’t matter that the bad guys won’t use the same tactics as before whether we inconvenienced ourselves as we do or not. Bureaucracies
specializing in fighting the “last war”. Rather like Captain Hindsight from South Park :-)

MJBrutus on November 16, 2010 at 8:39 PM

Before 9/11, Senator Daschle pushed through the sleazy deal in the backrooms of Capitol Hill that forced the FAA to buy defective baggage scanners from one of Linda’s other clients, L-3 International (from which Linda’s firm raked in $440,000 in the ’97–’01 period). Under a provision Linda’s husband had slipped into the 2000 budget for the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the FAA was required to buy one of L-3’s scanners for every one it purchased from the company’s competitors. The L-3 scanners were found to be substandard by DOT’s inspector general; FAA tests of the scanners showed high failure rates; and most have not yet been installed because of their defects (the one at the Dallas–Fort Worth airport — another of Linda’s clients — leaked radiation), which is a major reason DOT says it won’t be able to screen all luggage for explosives for years to come.

Makes you really trust the scanner companies–right? And they can’t detect chemicals or plastic. This is the government “conditioning” our mindset.

lovingmyUSA on November 16, 2010 at 8:44 PM

That was Linda Daschle, Tom Daschle’s wife. Linda Daschle went to work as chief lobbyist for the Air Transport Association, the airline industry’s main lobby; she then became the senior vice president of the American Association of Airport Executives; and these days hangs her hat at the pricey top Washington law/lobby shop Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell, headed by former GOP Senate leader and ex–Reagan chief of staff Howard Baker — where she peddles influence on behalf of a long list of lucrative aviation clients. The clients for whom Linda lobbied brought more than $5.86 million into Baker, Donelson in one three-year period, including Northwest Airlines ($870,000 from 1997 through 2001) and American Airlines ($1.26 million in fees). Northwest was already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy even before 9/11. American, which has had six fatal crashes since 1994 (not counting 9/11) and has been repeatedly fined by the FAA for a skein of safety violations, had the reputation as the most unsafe major U.S. carrier.

Yet these two clients of Linda Daschle’s got nearly $1 billion from the airline bailout her husband pushed into law — thanks to which Northwest (which was the second largest contributor to Senator Daschle’s 1998 campaign, and which scooped up $404 million in government cash) actually posted a $19 million profit in the third quarter after the twin-towers attacks. And, as the lone senator to vote against the bailout, Illinois GOPer Peter Fitzgerald, decried, “The only people who got bailed out were the shareholders. The 1 million airline employees were left twisting in the wind.”

lovingmyUSA on November 16, 2010 at 8:47 PM

This has nothing to do with security, Profile and this will not be necessary. The govt is purposely trying to avoid security measures. Obama is intentionally supporting terrorists.

proconstitution on November 16, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Whatever happened to the strategy of actually finding the enemy and killing them – and more importantly, killing their backers! – where they live? No need to be splashy about it, just here one day, gone the next.

Terrorism is the “home turf” method of warfare for our enemies. Total warfare is ours. I dimly recall that Sun Tzu and Clausewitz had words to say about fighting the enemy on ground of his choosing. The moreso when one realizes that when the “Western” method of war (ie, total warfare) is uesd against the “Tribal” method (you guessed it – terrorism and its variants), western methods win.

Every. Time.

Blacksmith on November 17, 2010 at 1:41 AM

Give me the airline that forces every passenger to eat a strip of bacon before getting on the plane.

Ronnie on November 16, 2010 at 7:56 AM

Force them? I’ll pay extra if an airline gives me bacon before getting on the plane. More if it’s a nice BLT!

VekTor on November 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2