Should Muslim's be Exempt from Enhanced Security Checks at our Airports?

[Ozmar]

i agree. But how is this spun to Muslims being persecuted?

 

[Intense]

i agree. But how is this spun to Muslims being persecuted?

No more than the rest of us.

The nature of the argument is legitimate, We All being Human Beings First, Special Treatment and Exemption, is absurd reasoning. That's not stopping the argument fom being made though.

 

[Ravi]

This advisory implies that Muslim women have a choice on how the patdown is performed, which they don't. Fuck 'em.

It is so much more than that though, if you watch the news. You don't get to do redo's with Security Breaches, that's a given, we need to find a way that is more humane, to Everybody. Public Humility, Body Invasion, should not even be issues. There is a right way, and a wrong way. Too many horror stories, from Every demographic.

What are you talking about? I haven't heard a single horror story.

 

[Intense]

UPDATE: TSA has posted a video in the incident on their website. You can read more about this video, the TSA incident report, and the incident itself HERE.




If you travel enough, you've seen it all -- and possibly some of the awful things that can happen while traveling will have actually happened to you. But nothing I've read about or experienced comes close to what Monica Emmerson experienced while at Reagan National Airport on June 11th while traveling with her 19-month-old toddler. This isn't one of those Catch-22 bureaucratic snafus; this isn't about rules being applied to the letter. This story is mostly about what can happen simply because the authorities in charge decide that they're going to exercise their authority because they can, regardless of whether it's legal or right or makes any sense at all.

And if this can happen to a former law enforcement officer with the United States Secret Service, it can happen to anyone.

The incident started when Monica, who left the Secret Service to raise a family, was stopped while going through airport security because there was water in her son's sippy cup. The sippy cup was seized by TSA. Monica wanted the cup back because the sippy cup was the only way her son would drink -- and it was a long flight between Washington, DC and Reno, Nevada where she was going for a family reunion. If you've ever had a toddler you understand about sippy cups.

So she was willing to spill the water out. Drink the water. Anything -- all that she wanted was to be able to have a cup that her 19-month-old toddler could drink from.

Here's what happened in Monica's words:.......

Nightmare at Reagan National Airport: A Security Story to End all Security Stories | NowPublic News Coverage

I'm short on time, this morning, so this will have to do for now. Try that Google Thingy on your Browser, Catholic Girl.

 

[Ravi]

Sorry, that doesn't qualify as a horror story.

 

[Intense]

Sorry, that doesn't qualify as a horror story.

That is not your decision to make for anyone outside of yourself. it is interesting when all of the voices in your head are unanimous though. I will have to give the matter furthur consideration. .... Nah!!!!

 

[Ravi]

Sorry, that doesn't qualify as a horror story.

That is not your decision to make for anyone outside of yourself. it is interesting when all of the voices in your head are unanimous though. I will have to give the matter furthur consideration. .... Nah!!!!

In other words, you have no horror stories.

Got it.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Sorry, that doesn't qualify as a horror story.

That is not your decision to make for anyone outside of yourself. it is interesting when all of the voices in your head are unanimous though. I will have to give the matter furthur consideration. .... Nah!!!!

In other words, you have no horror stories.

Got it.

 

[DiveCon]

Sorry, that doesn't qualify as a horror story.

That is not your decision to make for anyone outside of yourself. it is interesting when all of the voices in your head are unanimous though. I will have to give the matter furthur consideration. .... Nah!!!!

In other words, you have no horror stories.

Got it.

yeah, i'm sure you would feel the same if that had happened to YOU

 

[Intense]

WASHINGTON — The incoming leaders of the House Transportation Committee on Friday called the new airport pat-down procedures "overly intrusive" and demanded that the Transportation Security Administration restrict their use.
In a letter to the TSA, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., and Rep. Thomas Petri, R-Wis., who are set to assume leadership of aviation issues in Congress next year when Republicans take control, said only the highest risk passengers should be subjected to the more aggressive pat-downs.

It is the harshest reaction to date on the new searches from key leaders in Congress.

"The entire focus of TSA's efforts to improve aviation security needs to be revisited," Mica and Petri wrote in the letter. They accused TSA of reacting to old threats — in this case, the so-called "underwear bomber" who attempted to blow up a jet last Christmas — while failing to be "proactive."

Mica is expected to become chairman of the full Transportation Committee, and Petri is in line to lead the Aviation Subcommittee.

"Really now, who thinks the public will put up with the kind of behavior that would get you arrested if you weren't working for the government?" Petri said. "Do we really expect Grandma to go through this?"

TSA pat-downs 'overly intrusive,' key lawmakers say - USATODAY.com

 

[L.K.Eder]

frankly, i see that as crying over spilled milk. or formula.

this security screening shit has been in place for a long time, at least in europe for flights to the US.

concerning the liquids.

the full-body-scanners are new, and there are problems.

but i was patted down in Bush America. i had to remove my shoes, then too. and the belt, and the jacket.

so why the angst, now?

 

[Intense]

The UCSF profs’ main beef is this: We know the risks of medical chest X-rays, for example, which penetrate the skin to make those pictures of our bones. The back-scattering X-rays the TSA uses, however, aren’t like that at all—they penetrate just the clothes and the top layers of skin, and the scanner reads what’s reflected back. Because the full body scanners don’t need to go through your skin, they use less powerful radiation than the X-ray machines in the hospital. That sounds good in theory, but it means the skin absorbs a bigger blast than it would in the hospital, and the professors say we don’t know the effects of that skin exposure well enough to say that it’s safe.

The low-energy rays do a “Compton scatter” off tissue layers just under the skin, possibly exposing some vital areas and leaving the tissues at risk of mutation. When an X-ray Compton scatters, it doesn’t shift an electron to a higher energy level; instead, it hits the electron hard enough to dislodge it from its atom. The authors note that this process is “likely breaking bonds,” which could cause mutations in cells and raise the risk of cancer. [Ars Technica]

FDA, in its response letter, said:

The concern that “the dose to the skin may be dangerously high” is not supported. The recommended limit for annual dose to the skin for the general public is 50,000 µSv. The dose to the skin from one screening would be approximately 0.56 µSv when the effective dose for that same screening would be 0.25 µSv. Therefore the dose to skin for the example screening is at least 89,000 times lower than the annual limit.

Not everybody is convinced by the FDA case. I asked Columbia’s University’s David J. Brenner, who helped draft guidelines for full-body scanners (but now says he wouldn’t have done it if he knew the scanners would be used in such a widespread fashion), and he wrote back, “We know the radiation dose is very low but there are different views about just how low. We do need more independent analyses of the radiation doses involved.”
What’s the Real Radiation Risk of the TSA’s Full Body X-Ray Scans? | 80beats | Discover Magazine

 

[Intense]

Media Alert: Full Body Scanner Expert Has Answer to Airport Security Anxiety
Millivision's President Offers Insights on Alternative Technology That Would Eliminate Concerns Over Full Body Scanner Radiation Leading to Pat-Down Outcry and Security Boycotts

SOUTH DEERFIELD, MA--(Marketwire - November 19, 2010) - The president of a small Massachusetts-based company has an answer for airport security community leaders struggling with the opposition to full body scanning and the resulting uproar around aggressive pat-downs.

Paul Nicholas is president of Millivision, the developer of a non-radiating full body scanner that can detect threats with none of the health concerns associated with the current generation of airport security systems which depend on x-ray technology.

Millivision full-body scanners do not expose travelers to radiation associated with Backscatter and active millimeter wave systems but can still detect objects that would not be identified by metal detectors.

Millivision uses passive millimeter technology which eliminates the exposure to potential dangerous radiation -- a safety concern that is forcing travelers to consider an equally unpopular option, aggressive pat-downs.

Millivision recently released research data that sheds new light on the public's willingness to accept alternatives to traditional scanners. The survey revealed that 80 percent would be more willing to agree to be scanned if they knew a non-radiating full-body scanner was being used.

Millivision systems also employ privacy controls that address concerns raised by the public over the images generated by traditional scanners. The survey found that 70 percent of respondents would be more willing to submit to scans if privacy-protection features were being used.
Media Alert: Full Body Scanner Expert Has Answer to Airport Security Anxiety

 

[Ravi]

That is not your decision to make for anyone outside of yourself. it is interesting when all of the voices in your head are unanimous though. I will have to give the matter furthur consideration. .... Nah!!!!

In other words, you have no horror stories.

Got it.

yeah, i'm sure you would feel the same if that had happened to YOU

I would have bought a bottle of water on the other side of the scanner and not spent a minute whining over it...of course I'm not stupid enough to carry a full sippy cup through security.

 

[Intense]

In other words, you have no horror stories.

Got it.

yeah, i'm sure you would feel the same if that had happened to YOU

I would have bought a bottle of water on the other side of the scanner and not spent a minute whining over it...of course I'm not stupid enough to carry a full sippy cup through security.

I'm just amazed that you could separate from your pacifier and security blanket for so long.

 

[L.K.Eder]

yeah, i'm sure you would feel the same if that had happened to YOU

I would have bought a bottle of water on the other side of the scanner and not spent a minute whining over it...of course I'm not stupid enough to carry a full sippy cup through security.

I'm just amazed that you could separate from your pacifier and security blanket for so long.

hey, just sayin'

 

[Father Time]

In other words, you have no horror stories.

Got it.

yeah, i'm sure you would feel the same if that had happened to YOU

I would have bought a bottle of water on the other side of the scanner and not spent a minute whining over it...

Except they didn't let her do that, she spilt some and the TSA blew a gasket.

 

[Ravi]

Here's a real TSA horror story.

A friend of mine went to the Virgin Islands and was bringing me back a bottle of rum...my favorite rum, in fact. He bought it at a liquor store on the island and instead of packing it in his checked bag he put it in his carry on because he forgot he couldn't get it through security.

Of course it was "confiscated" and not only was he out the money, but the real horror was that on the other side duty free was closed and I didn't get my rum.

 

[Ravi]

yeah, i'm sure you would feel the same if that had happened to YOU

I would have bought a bottle of water on the other side of the scanner and not spent a minute whining over it...

Except they didn't let her do that, she spilt some and the TSA blew a gasket.

They prevented her from buying water on the other side of security?

I don't think so.

 

[Intense]

Here's a real TSA horror story.

A friend of mine went to the Virgin Islands and was bringing me back a bottle of rum...my favorite rum, in fact. He bought it at a liquor store on the island and instead of packing it in his checked bag he put it in his carry on because he forgot he couldn't get it through security.

Of course it was "confiscated" and not only was he out the money, but the real horror was that on the other side duty free was closed and I didn't get my rum.

Do you want to explain to the rest of us what is wrong with Capitan Morgan! I mean Really! Some people!

And You, hanging with Smugglers!