11 comments on “More TSA Nonsense: Nipple rings and a little boy’s shirt

  1. Pingback: TSA genius at work - Southern Maryland Community Forums

  2. You do realize that this whole anti-TSA hysteria has been manufactured by people with a vested interest in de-centralizing airport security and putting it back in the hands of private contractors. You know, they want to put it back the way it was before 9/11; just a demeaning but twice as cost effective, because they only paid those guys minimum wage.

    • You’re wrong. You’ve bought into the left-wing meme about this being an issue about public versus private security which it isn’t. Not only did I demonstrate with my previous post which examined the effectiveness of these security procedures, but Jeff Wise at Popular Mechanic interviewed security consultant Bruce Schneier who said that this was not about actually protecting travelers, but giving the impression that they were. Did you bother doing the research? No, as per usual Scott, you come at me from left field as ignorant as always.

      You sure private security companies would demand young autistic boys take off their shirts? You sure they would harass women with prosthetic breasts? You fail to provide any proof for you claim. As for the company that makes the body scanners, Rapiscan Systems, did you know how much money they spent lobbying Democrats? Would it surprise you that Tom Daschle’s wife Linda is one of their lobbyists? USA Today has a story about it, something you obviously didn’t read.

      For people who couldn’t stop complaining about the USA PATRIOT Act, you don’t seem to mind the groping of airline passengers. Do Fourth Amendment issues mean anything to you? Obviously not. Seriously, stop watching MSNBC and start properly educating yourself. I know facts make you uncomfortable, but they are pretty important… Twit…

    • and guess what, the private security officers are far more professional than the TSA.

      I have just had a recent experience here in Australia. The actual problem was my fault. However, there was no pat down involved, and on top of that we do not have to go through the indignity of those x-ray machines. The security officers were very professional and I have the highest regard for the job that they are doing at Australian airports.

      On top of that I experienced the professional security officers employed by P&O which means that they were also privately employed. These are highly professional individuals. If someone fails the metal detector there is no hands on pat downs. They use the wand…

      There is absolutely no need for these undignified new procedures.

      The panty bomber failed, the liquid plot was a failure, there was no attempt to detonate a laptop. There has be no other shoe bomber. In other words all of it is so unnecessary.

      The metal detectors should be sufficient to determine if someone needs further searching. Also, after my experience going through security procedures at New Zealand ports, I would think that a sniffer dog is a good investment since these dogs can be trained to detect explosives.

      • Most of it just takes common sense. El-Al’s secret is vigilance and common sense. I do see what you’re saying about dogs, and I do think they are better at detecting bombs, but the question then is how many dogs would be needed and what would be the procedures surrounding their use. I don’t know what to think of that, but it definitely sounds better than being put through these TSA procedures.

        As for the bombers, yeah, it wasn’t these procedures that foiled those plots. Much of it came down to luck and airline passengers who quickly realized what was going on. If someone wants to bring down a plane, they will figure out a way to do it, and while the vast majority of them will be caught, sooner or later, someone will get through security. Once again, vigilance and common sense, not the harassment of children and nuns.

        Thanks for the comment and I hope you come back often to read and comment on more of my posts.

  3. It would not take many dogs at each airport. For example one dog per entry point at security would be sufficient.

    I can give a few examples were sniffer dogs were being used during my recent travels.

    My first experiences were last year at Los Angeles airport and again at Sydney airport. In both cases we had disembarked and collecting our luggage. In Los Angeles the dog handler just walked around very naturally. She was not directing the dog to sniff out the luggage and it was all very pleasant. We had a long wait to collect our bags so I observed the dog handler for quite a long time. In Sydney I was sitting down when I saw the handler and watched as he directed the dog to sniff the luggage. My luggage tha had been collected was left alone.

    My other experience was in New Zealand. The dog handler was on board in Dunedin and we all had to submit our bags for a food sniff test. This happened again at Auckland. This time the dog put his head on my bag – weird. I had not had any food in the bag (a bag I had purchased on the ship). Anyway a lot of people failed the sniff test and we simply lined up for a quick check.

    It was interesting to note how the dog responded. I was more than willing to have the bag inspected. The dog sniffed a couple of times then he leaned his head on the top of the bag.

    The way that I would see this working is that the handler would simply walk up and down the line and let the dog do the sniffing of the hand luggage. That hand luggage will get x-rayed anyway, but x-ray cannot detect the bombs, so the sniffing would be an indication that further checks are required. In that way people who fail the dog sniff checks could be given further checks and everyone else can proceed as normal.

    • Interesting. I see what you’re trying to say, and while I am not an expert on such security procedures, this idea sounds far more reasonable than what American airline passengers are being put through right now.

      • The only problem with this is that some of these Islamists have been secreting materials on their persons. The dogs would need to be allowed to sniff people (fingers perhaps?) to see if they can detect PETN.

        It should be noted that the last failed attempt to bomb an aircraft was the parcel bombs. The parcel that was found in the U.K. was given a pass the first time. I am not sure what procedures were used on those packages in the U.K. but they did fail to find a package containing a bomb. That is a massive fail.

        What is very curious is that not one of these plots and attempts have started in the USA. All of them have been started in an overseas location:London and Amsterdam were two of those locations. This means that there is not a good case to force passengers to undergo unnecessary security procedures.

        Here in Australia we do not remove our shoes unless we fail the metal detector test (and even then if we are lucky we still do not have to remove our shoes – personal experience 🙂 )

      • True. Mark Levin raised the point on his talk radio show a while back stating that all these procedures have led al-Qaeda to adapt their strategies as was demonstrated with the package bombs. You also make a good point about these terrorist attacks originating outside the United States. If security procedures are raised in America, terrorist will use international flights to stage attacks.

        All in all, it comes back to the fact that this is an irrational response. If those in charge would take a step back to examine what is going on and what could be done to properly prevent terrorist attacks, we wouldn’t be dealing with this nonsense.

  4. Yes, Mark Levin is correct. The exception has been 9/11 where the terrorists did in fact board the aircraft from US airports.

    However, I still doubt that the current procedures would stop a determined terrorist. They could gain access to the aircraft as baggage handlers.

    Yes, I am aware that the aircrew go through the same checks as the passengers. However, it seems silly to put the pilots and the attendants through scanning and offensive pat downs.

    If they were looking for drugs and suspected the aircrew of being drug couriers that would be a different kettle of fish. However, this is not about being a drug courier. It is about non-existent terrorists.

    On my own blog I wrote a piece called “Closing the door when the horse has bolted” (note to self: must make that correction) and was challenged by someone about what I meant at the end when I simply stated that if everyone has to be checked then the Islamists should not get exemptions (actually I trashed the comment because the person was twisting my words), and I stand by the comment, that if these procedures are necessary then everyone should undergo them – no exceptions – or they are unnecessary and must be scrapped. 🙂

    • I recommend giving Mark Levin’s podcasts a listen if you like this sort of stuff. The man is very smart and I always enjoy him tearing out the leftists that call his show. Much like Scott Gunsaullus, they believe every Democratic talking point fed to them, unable to do research on the issue to find out what is really going on. In my case, if I think my source is a little too biased, I will go to left-wing website like The Huffington Post to read what they believe. I also watch BBC, CNN and CBC for the same thing. While biased on local news, their international coverage is very good.

      In any event, don’t worry about this nonsense. Those who say we shouldn’t be profiling are the same group which doesn’t mind that these searches are violate the Fourth Amendment. Rights for suspected terrorists but not innocent bystanders? Illogical and downright disturbing if you ask me. As for twisting words, you know what you said, and anyone reading your blog does too. Just don’t reply to them, or, as I have done, deny them the right to comment on your blog. Free speech is one thing, but angry slanderous rants is quite another.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s