I agree this isn't a partisan issue, but I don't really have an issue with this. If someone does? Do. Not. Fly. There is no God-given or Constitutionally-protected right to fly, and every time a plane takes off it endangers the lives of the crew and passengers and public. If we're making a commitment to making those planes safer, then that means discomfort. If we really think that terrorism is a threat, then we need to anticipate that they will use unconventional means--potentially including little girls as bomb mules. I personally feel a bit uncomfortable and put-upon when I fly, but it's a cost of participating in the system. If I didn't want to put up with it, or if I valued the privacy I experience on a regular basis more, then I would stay home. Or drive. Or take a train. Ed O.
That's not very practical advice, Ed, for those of us who fly for work. That's a big if. I don't believe we are actually making a commitment to making flying safer. What we are actually doing is pretending that we are making flying safer by inconveniencing people. We need to anticipate that our security measures are well known and obvious and therefore ineffectual. Terrorists are smarter (or at least more strongly motivated) than TSA agents. It doesn't need to be a cost of participating in the system. barfo
Pediatricians are looking for illness in a child, and with the consent of the parent. LOL at you comparing a pediatrician to a TSA groper.
The TSA is looking for bombs in a child, and with the consent of the American public via its duly elected representatives. barfo
How many bombs has TSA found in a child's private areas? Now, take that number and compare it to the number of illnesses that pediatricians find on an exam. I know of two instances involving my own children. It was a stupid comparison, so I'm not surprised you would latch on to it as well. May as well make a stupid lupus joke to really be an ass.
People who don't want to work in high places aren't steelworkers, and people who don't like to have their privacy invaded/use airplanes shouldn't have jobs that rely on that. As someone who only flies for pleasure, I don't want to have more lax security because some people are sensitive about privacy when they fly. That's your opinion. I'm not sure that I agree. Just because someone can bust in my window doesn't mean that I should leave my front door unlocked. It's true that terrorists are more strongly motivated than TSA agents, but that's why we should have a process in place that sets the bar high for terrorists to perform actions on airplanes. I'm not sure what the cost should be, but if it's overkill and it prevents some people from wanting to fly while keeping planes from being blown up and/or crashing into buildings... it's a worthwhile cost to me. Ed O.
That's because illnesses are more common than bombs. That doesn't mean bombs aren't still important or that children's private parts (or secret places / naughty bits...whatever your favourite euphemism is) shouldn't be investigated as part of the War on Terror.
You're making a distinction without a difference. Terrorists, unlike cancer or other maladies that a doctor is intending to detect, react dynamically. They will anticipate security measures and act (or not) appropriately. If no one was being inspected, then the bar would be lower and it stands to reason that terrorists would be more likely to act. Ed O.
You act like there are no pre-screens or metal detectors. This groping occurs AFTER the child has already been through one security screening, and often-times, they are "clean" in that screening. Hey, if you condone it, great. You already compared a pediatrician to a TSA employee, so it's obvious that you lack the basic understanding that being a parent gives those of us with kids.
Yeah, I suppose. Then again, when I started flying these procedures didn't exist. Also, not that it matters, but my beef is not about privacy but just that it is a waste of time. They can grope me all they want as long as it doesn't slow me down. There's a difference between what the TSA does, and security. Yes it is, and I didn't expect you to. I look forward to the implementation of that high bar. I haven't seen any attempts to do so as of yet. I don't think it is overkill. It's failure to kill. It's fake security. barfo
Probably 0 up to now. How many terrorists used boxcutters to engineer the biggest single terrorist act in history before 9/11?
God is a myth, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you. The Right To Travel As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the united States, or either of them. http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article4
