Would you like peanuts, pretzels, or hyperbole?

[Mrs. Funk]

Link?

Terrorists could wear a bra and/or underwear that is full of plastic explosives, and last Christmas apparently that is what the "Christmas Day Bomber" was wearing. Security/terrorism experts say that the only way to find this is with scanning technology or with pat downs, and that makes sense to me.

A bunch of ladies are getting on my plane wearing burqas, and I would want them either scanned or patted down for non-metallic explosives and/or weapons. Seems like common sense to me. And in this politically correct era in which we live, they have to be patting down the rest of us in order to have the right to pat down terrorism candidates.

Does anybody on here have some type of evidence or expertise in this area that would suggest that you can find people wearing non-metallic explosives in their underwear without scanning or pat downs?

I don't disagree that non-metallic explosive can be discovered this way.

The point I was trying to make, rather, is that terrorists will find another way. Neither the scanner nor pat downs definitively discover items hidden in body cavities—and yes, there are people crazy enough to shove stuff up their anuses and vaginas and to swallow stuff.

I suppose the solution to this is to make everybody undergo full body X-rays in order to travel?

What about using a product like this? Or again, screen out people using bomb and drug dogs.

I think the larger point is that there needs to be some kind of sensitivity to human beings. A breast cancer survivor shouldn't have to remove her prosthetic breast. A gentleman with a urostomy shouldn't have urine poured over himself as TSA agents break the seal on the bag. Make people declare their medical devices on their boarding passes if necessary, and require the person to back it up with a note from a doctor if people are worried about incendiary prosthetic breasts.

The TSA Chief recently said that the TSA will work to make the screening procedures as "minimally invasive as possible." If anything, I see airport protocol becoming MORE invasive than less, and I don't see it slowing down.

[CardiacCoug]

I think the larger point is that there needs to be some kind of sensitivity to human beings. A breast cancer survivor shouldn't have to remove her prosthetic breast. A gentleman with a urostomy shouldn't have urine poured over himself as TSA agents break the seal on the bag. Make people declare their medical devices on their boarding passes if necessary, and require the person to back it up with a note from a doctor if people are worried about incendiary prosthetic breasts.

Agreed.

I remember when we had 4 kids who were 6 years old and younger and how ridiculous it was when the TSA people made us untie and remove ALL the little tiny shoes. What a joke that was.

I read those stories about the urostomy and breast prosthesis and it sure does seem like the TSA people in those situations are lacking in common sense and in sensitivity.

[wuapinmon]

When my oldest was four or five, I TSA person in Las Vegas yelled, and I mean yelled "DON'T TOUCH THAT" as she was reaching out to grab her little Dora the Explorer suitcase that the lady was rifling through. I've only wanted to punch a woman twice in my life, and that was the second time.

[Mrs. Funk]

Agreed.

I remember when we had 4 kids who were 6 years old and younger and how ridiculous it was when the TSA people made us untie and remove ALL the little tiny shoes. What a joke that was.

I read those stories about the urostomy and breast prosthesis and it sure does seem like the TSA people in those situations are lacking in common sense and in sensitivity.

Velcro for airport visits, apparently. That's ridiculous.

It reminds me of this clip I saw of a little kid getting his shirt taken off and being searched in front of everybody at the airport a few days ago.

[YOUTUBE]XSQTz1bccL4[/YOUTUBE]

[venkman]

Velcro for airport visits, apparently. That's ridiculous.

It reminds me of this clip I saw of a little kid getting his shirt taken off and being searched in front of everybody at the airport a few days ago.

[YOUTUBE]XSQTz1bccL4[/YOUTUBE]

Fucking ridiculous. These assholes are just testing us to see how much we'll put up with. Time to wake up.

I'll gladly take a liberal like Tim over a "conservative" who thinks getting groped is necessary to keep us from getting blown up.

[woot]

It seems to me that a smart terrorist would just bomb one of these long lines waiting to get groped.

Either that or absolutely any other form of mass transit that don't have the slightest bit of security, and yet oddly don't get bombed very often.

Could it possibly be that spending billions and compromising the freedoms guaranteed us by the constitution in order to feign prevention of what in reality has been a trivial number of deaths isn't a good idea? Could it be that some freedoms are worth fighting for, or even slightly increasing the risk of death for? Could it be that all the sheep who demand the government protect them are missing the point and shouldn't be catered to? I'm just asking questions.

[RobinFinderson]

It seems to me that a smart terrorist would just bomb one of these long lines waiting to get groped. Either that or absolutely any other form of mass transit that don't have the slightest bit of security, and yet oddly don't get bombed very often.

You can count me among the people who, on 9/11, figured that we had just entered a new day of continual terrorism in the US, against civilian targets, from now on. I immediately started to think of how easy it would be for terrorists to cause total panic and destruction within our borders... how many miles of train track are relatively exposed and not protected? How many malls and parks would need to be bombed before people would stop shopping at them?

The fact is, there are many terrorist sympathizers, even here within our borders, yet these things do NOT happen.

What does this mean? I don't think that the terrorists are stupid. I think that the terrorists have very specific messages that they would like to convey with their efforts, and the wanton destruction of random American civilians is not a part of their project. Is there anything else we can conclude from the relative absence of terrorism in our borders? I think there are only two real reasonable explanations. Either the terrorists are stupid, or they the terrorists are up to something far more specific than the general American populace understands.

[woot]

It seems to me that Obama is in a very tight spot right now.

There are a great number of premises that may or not be true on which the necessity of current TSA procedures is based. These include:

1. The terrorists are aiming to kill US civilians.
2. The terrorists are currently organized, competent, and numerous enough to be capable of planning and executing plots.
3. The terrorists are very motivated to carry out these plots.
4. Potential attacks can be prevented, or at least drastically reduced in number, by the current TSA screening techniques.
5. The 4th amendment of the constitution is less important than our safety.

Based on these premises, the argument that the current TSA screening techniques are necessary seems to be valid.

However, premise 5 is just wrong. One could cite Franklin here, but it's been done to death.

Premise 4 is not in evidence as far as I can tell, unless you consider cigarette lighters and nail clippers evidence, in which case premise 4 is proven a million times over. It seems obvious that such measures would prevent attacks, but I don't think it's obvious at all. If anything, it would only encourage the terrorists to choose other targets, which they have not done. Then there are the stories of people sneaking knives onto planes just to see if they can. Yes, they still can.

The first 3 is where it gets dicey for me. I wish I could trust that the president is privy to information that strongly suggests that the first 3 premises are true, and that this information has led to him to approve of these extreme measures. Unfortunately, I don't trust the president.

From where I'm sitting, there's no reason to think premise 1 is true; the terrorists don't seem to be trying very hard. Again, maybe Obama has lots of information about attacks that have been prevented that we don't know about. I doubt it. At least one of the first 3 premises must be false. Either they don't actually hate us, they don't hate us enough to carry out plots against us, or they aren't capable of doing so.

The very "attack" that precipitated the added invasive screening measures was carried out to the tune of Yakety Sax.

Finally, even if somehow 1-3 are all true, what if letting 3000 die every so often is just the price we pay for enjoying the freedoms we do? Sure, I expect the government to pay attention to do what it can behind the scenes to keep us safe (which wasn't done leading up to 9/11), but that needs to end as soon as it infringes on our rights.

9/11 could have been prevented if the government had been paying attention; even the current screening measures are unlikely to have had any effect (the stronger cockpit doors, on the other hand, would have made all the difference! Notice no rights had to be infringed upon!).

Ok this is all very rambley and I'm just typing while thinking here, but the point, I think, is that Obama has chosen to give people the impression that he's doing all he can to prevent an attack so that if one happens he won't be blamed. A bigger man would stand up and decry the corruption and fear that has gotten us to this point and put his neck on the line to protect the values that lay at the foundation of our nation, even if it meant ignoring the bleating of the sheep.

[statman]

Does anybody on here have some type of evidence or expertise in this area that would suggest that you can find people wearing non-metallic explosives in their underwear without scanning or pat downs?

There are some explosives that dogs can't detect easily. One of the ones that they're making and using - TATP - is very different structurally from other explosives. Unlike virtually all other high explosives TATP has no nitrate groups - and that's the common denominator that dogs are smelling. TNT, PETN, RDX, C4, ANFO - they're all nitroamines, nitroaromatics, or nitrate ester explosives.

The good thing for all of us, TATP sounds like it is fairly easy to make, but in reality, it has to be made very carefully or it's worthless as an explosive. And even if made properly, if it's stored improperly, it degrades quickly. It's a true high explosive if everything works right. But if not, it burns rather than explodes.

Here's a good link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...explosives.htm

Links to each major type of explosive are on the right.

It's not that you can't train a dog to detect TATP. It's got a very distinctive smell that humans can recognize - dogs certainly could as well. But they'd have to be trained specifically for TATP. One narrow explosive, where nitrate detection gets just about everything else...

[CardiacCoug]

The fact is, there are many terrorist sympathizers, even here within our borders, yet these things do NOT happen.

I'm not sure why airplanes have been historical targets for terrorists as opposed to much softer targets. In my more paranoid moments it has occurred to me that hospitals would be outrageously soft targets where huge casualties and mass panic could be caused by terrorists. Houston has three 30-story, 1000-bed hospitals within a block of each other where there are 4000+ employees in each hospital at any given time and no significant security. Talk about a soft target for terrorists that would be so much easier to attack than an airplane.

[il Padrino Ute]

I'm not sure why airplanes have been historical targets for terrorists as opposed to much softer targets. In my more paranoid moments it has occurred to me that hospitals would be outrageously soft targets where huge casualties and mass panic could be caused by terrorists. Houston has three 30-story, 1000-bed hospitals within a block of each other where there are 4000+ employees in each hospital at any given time and no significant security. Talk about a soft target for terrorists that would be so much easier to attack than an airplane.

My guess would be that today's terrorists are of the same ilk as those in the past who would hijack an airliner rather than blow it up. The fear of being 30,000 feet in the air inside a small capsule and having absolutely nowhere to go in order to feel safe should something happen would be more effective than the same event happening on the ground.

[wuapinmon]

Spoiler for Possibly NSFW:

[YOUTUBE]TrIJr-klDv8[/YOUTUBE]

[woot]

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/24...g-woman-s.html

Ok, I'll go ahead and call it: The terrorists won.

[BigFatMeanie]

Just wait until the first terrorist gets caught hiding explosives in body cavities. Will we then all be subject to a body cavity search?