|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
 Posted - 07/04/2012 : 06:27:59
|
|
I mean, I get it, they don't like their rights being violated or whatever, but they're like a dog with a bone about that one issue. It doesn't seem like a major problem in the world today (to me). The complaining really doesn't seem proportional to the problem. You get searched at airports. Sorry but that isn't step 1 on an unavoidable path to a police state.
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2012 : 07:14:15 [Permalink]
|
| Their complaining is proportional to the amount of government waste the safety theater represents. Has the TSA stopped even a single would-be terrorist? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2012 : 07:41:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I mean, I get it, they don't like their rights being violated or whatever, but they're like a dog with a bone about that one issue. It doesn't seem like a major problem in the world today (to me). The complaining really doesn't seem proportional to the problem. You get searched at airports. Sorry but that isn't step 1 on an unavoidable path to a police state.
|
Oh boy! No you don't get it.
Let's face it for some reason there are those who don't get it and some of those never will. By your own words which I highlighted you don't get it right now but think you do.
Sorry but that isn't step 1 on an unavoidable path to a police state. |
What would be the first step? I don't expect you will or can say.
As I see it by definition, the first step to "an unavoidable path to a police state" isn't the first but the last. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2012 : 08:06:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Their complaining is proportional to the amount of government waste the safety theater represents. Has the TSA stopped even a single would-be terrorist?
|
Not that I like the TSA but how would we know if they stopped a would-be terrorist? Given the extra security, it could be that a terrorist might not think an attack on a plane would be successful. It might act as a deterrent.
El Al, which should be an obvious target for terrorists is, with all of their security measures, considered the most secure airline in the world.
We don't need that level of security, and it's debatable that we need the TSA's level of security. I think not. But again, we can't rule it out as a deterrent for would be terrorists.
As for libertarians, there are very few programs that envolves government taxing and spending that they aren't willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, just to get rid of them. Even programs that have been demonstrably successful. They advocate for personal freedom to the point of irrationality. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2012 : 08:37:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Their complaining is proportional to the amount of government waste the safety theater represents. Has the TSA stopped even a single would-be terrorist?
|
Valid point Dave. There are those that say NO.
Link.
In May, the Government Accountability Office released a report noting that SPOT's annual cost is more than $200 million and that as of March 2010 some 3,000 behavior detection officers were deployed at 161 airports but had not apprehended a single terrorist. (Hundreds of illegal aliens and drug smugglers, however, were arrested due to the program between 2004 and 2008.) What's more, the GAO noted that at least 16 individuals later accused of involvement in terrorist plots flew 23 different times through U.S. airports since 2004, but TSA behavior-detection officers didn't sniff out any of them. |
There are incidents that have NOTHING to do with catching terrorist but does have to do with unbridled power installed on a premise and used for whatever whenever they want. If this was done to a US Senator what "rights" does anyone have to free lawful movement and their guaranteed civil liberties? Would "none" be the answer? I really doesn't matter if any president ever say the the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper, we are controlled by those who believe it and ignore the guarantees anytime they want with impunity and without recourse for the victims. Examples and complaints are reported daily in great numbers by everyday citizens. Because weekly reports are not sent to "us" that does not mean they're not occurring everywhere and daily. The evidence is out there to be seen.
Edited to add,
What it comes down to is we have no rights that are inalienable. If we did they couldn't be violated as they are. I won't bother to give examples that are way beyond TSA violations. That would border on being off topic. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
| Edited by - sailingsoul on 07/04/2012 08:50:41 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2012 : 09:37:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Not that I like the TSA but how would we know if they stopped a would-be terrorist? Given the extra security, it could be that a terrorist might not think an attack on a plane would be successful. It might act as a deterrent. |
It might deter a lone nutcase, but then 11 guys taking four, three-ounce containers onto a plane can make over a gallon of liquid explosives in a lavatory. Fuses, igniters and other bomb parts have gone through TSA checkpoints unchallenged, and still other weapon parts can be built out of things which can be purchased at an airport between the checkpoints and the airplanes.
It is, as I said, security theater. It looks like the TSA is doing something worthwhile, but a determined set of terrorists would have no problems foiling the system, so it's really all for naught. And the slow lifting of restrictions over time shows that they know it.
The thing that actually stops terrorists is good police work before the terrorists even get to the airport.| El Al, which should be an obvious target for terrorists is, with all of their security measures, considered the most secure airline in the world. |
And you'll notice that their security measures are based on intelligence work, personal interviews and military-style readiness, and not on preventing people from carrying bottled water and nail clippers onto a plane. Their measures would be considered unconstitutionally discriminatory and tremendously burdensome to US fliers, but that doesn't mean that what the TSA has done will work to foil any terrorist plots.| As for libertarians, there are very few programs that envolves government taxing and spending that they aren't willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, just to get rid of them. Even programs that have been demonstrably successful. They advocate for personal freedom to the point of irrationality. |
Indeed. But even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. The TSA's measures are demonstrably broken. We shouldn't let people walk guns onto a plane, but X-raying peoples' shoes doesn't prevent hijackings. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2012 : 10:37:43 [Permalink]
|
Dave. I didn't actually say I agree that the TSA is of any particular benefit. I just suggested that it might act as a deterrent. Even the scenario that you suggest for pros is probably too big a hassle to be worth the risk. There are lots of easier ways to create havoc.
I agree that good police work is the best way to stop a terrorist plot. And that's demonstrable. I have already agreed that the level of security that the TSA supposedly offers us is unnecessary. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2012 : 11:52:19 [Permalink]
|
Sure terrorists used weapons to hijack commercial jets and kill thousands of people, but lets suppose for a minute that the people behind the TSA have no interest in security and their "precautions" are in fact the first step in a government plot to slowly strip away civil liberties, acting upon the 9/11 hysteria to implement pointless checks in order to soften up the populace for further invasions of privacy.
.....That sure sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
Isn't it more likely that they implemented stricter security in order to make average people feel more safe? Occam's razor |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 07/04/2012 11:55:52 |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2012 : 11:53:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Oh boy! No you don't get it.
|
OK, maybe I don't get "it". But wouldn't a normal human being explain "it" at this point?
As I see it by definition, the first step to "an unavoidable path to a police state" isn't the first but the last. |
Well that's a completely redundant spin on it. But anyway, my point was that, sure, having stricter checks is closer to a police state than no checks, but they by no means suggests the entire society will go on a downward spiral towards totalitarianism. It's a brief security check on commercial flights. I hardly see how it's worthy of the uproar. Seems to me the problem is that a lot of libertarians are celebrities who travel a lot and they are disproportionately vocal about the inconvenience it causes them. |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 07/04/2012 12:01:28 |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2012 : 12:12:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
It might deter a lone nutcase, but then 11 guys taking four, three-ounce containers onto a plane can make over a gallon of liquid explosives in a lavatory. Fuses, igniters and other bomb parts have gone through TSA checkpoints unchallenged, and still other weapon parts can be built out of things which can be purchased at an airport between the checkpoints and the airplanes.
|
So the philosophy seems to be (and forgive/correct me if this is a strawman):
Since it's possible for a particular type of weapon to be smuggled aboard or assembled on board a plane, there is no point screening for anything
Since police work seems to be the best way to prevent terrorism, it seems to me that if someone simply took a knife or a hand grenade on board any chance of preventing that in advance would be almost impossible. However a plot involving 11 men in a coordinated plan to smuggle liquid explosives fuses, igniters etc, would stand a much better chance of being uncovered in a police investigation. |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2012 : 17:44:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Isn't it more likely that they implemented stricter security in order to make average people feel more safe? Occam's razor
|
But they don't make me feel safer. 
On the contrary, I got furious because TSA-apes destroyed my suitcase just because they didn't have the intelligence to open a carabiner which I had used to secure the double-zipper to prevent the case from opening (and to foil thieves of opportunity). Instead of opening the spring-loaded carabiner, they cut the zipper open with a bolt-cutter. How smart is that?
Having people in charge of security who are barely intelligent enough to tie their own shoes does not inspire confidence or a sense of safety.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2012 : 20:13:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dave. I didn't actually say I agree that the TSA is of any particular benefit. |
And I didn't say that you did.| I just suggested that it might act as a deterrent. |
And I agreed that it might deter nutjobs.| Even the scenario that you suggest for pros is probably too big a hassle to be worth the risk. There are lots of easier ways to create havoc. |
Indeed. The TSA does nothing to prevent people from, say, blowing up an airport.
And now they've started randomly screening train passengers. It's nuts. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2012 : 20:38:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
So the philosophy seems to be (and forgive/correct me if this is a strawman):
Since it's possible for a particular type of weapon to be smuggled aboard or assembled on board a plane, there is no point screening for anything |
Yeah, that's nowhere close. The burdensome measures that the TSA has in place do nothing to prevent the things that they are intended to prevent, because they are broken measures. If you want to smuggle something onto a plane in a shoe, put the shoe on someone who is under 12 or over 75. If you want to smuggle a liquid explosive onto a plane, make it look like breast milk, or split it into lots of three-ounce containers.
Nobody is saying that we should get rid of the metal detectors and X-ray machines and pat-downs and interrogations. Critics of the TSA are saying that those tools need to be used in ways that will actually work to deter or prevent crimes.
Nobody has ever tried to hijack a plane with a set of blender blades, so while putting a blender in your carry-on luggage may be sorta dumb to begin with, terrorists are not trying to disguise themselves as margarita lovers. Similarly, while nail clippers and small scissors might be used as weapons, so might ball-points pens and sharpened credit cards. The "prohibited items" list doesn't make any sense, as shown by the fact that Richard Reid tried to light his shoe bomb with his allowed matches.| Since police work seems to be the best way to prevent terrorism, it seems to me that if someone simply took a knife or a hand grenade on board any chance of preventing that in advance would be almost impossible. |
Knives and grenades are relatively easy to prevent. But even then, what kind of knives? Should we disallow butter knives? The 9/11 terrorists had box cutters, but nobody is going to get into a cockpit with a box cutter any longer. Would anyone seriously try to take over a plane with a sword?
How about a piece of kerfed obsidian? Super-duper sharp, but could it be seen for the weapon it is on X-ray? Should we seek to stop cro-magnons intent on hijacking a plane?| However a plot involving 11 men in a coordinated plan to smuggle liquid explosives fuses, igniters etc, would stand a much better chance of being uncovered in a police investigation. |
Indeed. But do you think one guy with a whole gallon would go unchallenged without the three-ounce rule? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2012 : 01:07:02 [Permalink]
|
Anecdote:
We (me and family) just flew into the US (Los Angeles airport), waited a few hours and flew onwards out of the US. Such a journey does not require you to have a visa to enter the US but, if you don't, it does require you to have a visa waiver. Such a waiver is stored for you on some server somewhere so that airport security can access it. I applied for these waivers (and paid the fee) for all of us a few months back. Easy peasy, we thought... We turned up at the airport in Canada to check into our US bound flight in good time (we were, in fact, first in line, coming there some 2.5 hours before departure). Everything went smoothly until the attendant behind the counter tried to check-in family member number four. She could not find a waiver for this family member. This resulted in the attendant having to phone someone at US homeland security(?) to see what was going on. We showed the attendant the reference numbers we had kept when I applied for the waivers, but that, for some reason, did not help.
After a rather lenghty process, family member number four was eventually issued an exception for having to have a waiver and we were allowed to proceed to the aircraft some 25 minutes before departure. This all tied up one out of two attendants for the entire check-in process and was, quite obviously, quite stressful for us.
And who was family member number four, you might ask? Well, all that one needs to know is that this person was four years old. Pathetic. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2012 : 10:42:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
Not that I like the TSA but how would we know if they stopped a would-be terrorist? Given the extra security, it could be that a terrorist might not think an attack on a plane would be successful. It might act as a deterrent. |
It might deter a lone nutcase, but then 11 guys taking four, three-ounce containers onto a plane can make over a gallon of liquid explosives in a lavatory. Fuses, igniters and other bomb parts have gone through TSA checkpoints unchallenged, and still other weapon parts can be built out of things which can be purchased at an airport between the checkpoints and the airplanes. |
But isn't this-- in part-- the point? It now takes much more coordination to cause problems, and more coordination leads to errors in planning. A lone person doesn't need to email people and make phone calls and congregate. But a group of 11 do have to do that, and that dramatically increases the likelihood that law enforcement is going to catch on long before they pull up to LAX or IAD.
|
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2012 : 10:47:22 [Permalink]
|
Who's to say that a 4 yr old could not be a terrorist? Fact! Nobody can prove that it can't be so, after all. All it takes is just 1, 4 yr old and thousands of people could die, die forever, don't you know! They're, the TSA, were just doing their job and you did arrive safely, didn't you? What more proof is needed. Governments are only trying to keep us and travelers safe and all everyone can do is bitch about it.
Americans and people in general are obviously a bunch of idiots who will surrender everything requested based on NO EVIDENCE of current threat deemed to be necessary. They will put up with untold amount of bullshit if properly terrorized (conditioned) first. For anyone who doesn't buy the terror training, they can just fuck off and if they insist they will happily be detained, miss their flight and even arrested if they choose, their choice. Every traveler gets a choice, the TSA is there to serve. It's all good. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Why do Libertarians hate the TSA so much
