TSA shake-down of quadruple amputee at Phoenix airport

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Lisa Simeone, Mar 13, 2012.

  1. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    TSA shake-down of quadruple amputee at Phoenix airport
    Never know whether I should post these in the video forum or this one. There's a video at the article.

    The guy is right, of course, except when he starts in about the "white Anglo-Saxon" blah blah blah. Listen, people, that's the wrong tack to take. Forget the ethical rationale, which though I support I know won't wash with half the country. I can quote Martin Neimoller till I'm blue in the face. So forget it.

    From just a practical point of view, it's a lousy argument. If you make that argument, then if ever a "white Anglo-Saxon" person attempts an attack (which has already happened -- Richard Reid -- but people don't seem to want to remember that), then you're leaving the door wide open for TSA abuse to continue. You're saying it's okay as long as only targeted people get abused. Therefore, someday, it's okay that you and yours get abused It's a stupid argument. It accomplishes nothing. Enough already.

    (Oh, well, I see I made the Martin Niemöller argument anyway!)
     
  2. FaustsAccountant

    FaustsAccountant Original Member

    I know I'm cross threading with this, but it's been turning in my mind and hope can expand the conversation/discussion here:

    thinking back on another thread where Rugape was justifying that only 10% of the population was affected or have negative experiences with TSA's practices and 10% was a small amount compared to the whole.

    That still rubbed me the wrong way. Either side of the hand in that doesn't work. The people who were being abused by TSA, we don't have to talk about, it's a dead horse beaten. The 90% who don't care so long as it's not them (yet)- that's just short sighted and selfish.

    And for the abusers, trying to justify that since they only create negative experiences for 10% and give the the 90% happy experiences is still the wrong approach. 'I only abuse a small amount of the population so it's okay' tells me that person hasn't fully grasp fundamental humanity nor basic social outlook to participate in society. And at this point, though I normally don't wish ill on anyone, I wouldn't have an ounce of sympathy when the tables turn and that person ends up being the 10%. The tune they sing then will be deaf on my ears.

    Our whole American society, on paper, is based on all being equal-can't be practiced as long as such justifications slide by.
     
  3. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    He wasn't talking about profiling so much as use intelligence in screening particular flyers whose background check shows some cause to do so. The problem is that the government appears too stupid to do that. Whatever real dangerous individuals may be on a list have been diluted with thousands of names of people who have done nothing, expressed political speech, are on it as a result of name confusion, etc.
    Should "background check problem" = they not fly? They should be screened. That's not the same as Pre-check, which is a buy-your-cut-ahead-in-the-line. Pre-Check is anti-intelligent.

    The we are all equal, we will all be humiliated equally argument also fails for me. No one should be humiliated. Stop wasting all this "effort" on every traveller. We should have our bags x-rayed, ourselves metal detected, proper ID check, and on our way.

    Making a quadruple amputee, who is known well enough, flying often enough to be on a first name basis at the airport, go through the BS over and over and over again "to be fair" is simply insane.
     
  4. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    I'd probably be out of a job if 10% of the customers who buy the products I work on were consistently dissatisfied. I'd be out on my (expletive deleted) if their issues were attributable to me.
     
  5. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Being a customer involves choice. That's not the right model.
     
  6. FaustsAccountant

    FaustsAccountant Original Member

    That's true as well (the first part regarding background) and you have a good point, several good points there.

    And I'm not saying we all be abused equally- I'm aiming for the opposite.
     
  7. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Much like the TSA itself.
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  8. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    KrazyKat, but he did use the phrase "white Anglo-Saxon," as if that should be a Get Out of Jail Free card. As if only those Scary Ay-rab People should be scrutinized.

    I agree that none of us should be abused the way the TSA is abusing us. But you all already know this.
     
  9. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I've maintained for some time that reasonable levels of security would be met by using WTMD, Bag Checks, ETD swabs on a percentage of people and all of those people not able to be screened by WTMD only escalating to a pat down or other methods if cause is presented.

    I disagree that government isn't smart enough to do reasonable screening, its just the part of government that makes up DHS and TSA that seems to have its collective heads implanted firmly in their asses.
     
    KrazyKat and Lisa Simeone like this.
  10. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Of course. We're dealing with a large, fascistic, and most of all stupid agency--which does not seem to have the ability to select passengers for additional screening without profiling or without oggling their breast shape. But until secondary screening is the exception, until we are allowed to pass unless there is cause, we are all subjected to BS because of some fear of discrimination on top of the rest of their stupid. Equity is the rationale.
    What needs to be communicated is that profiling is not the alternative to stupid, intelligence is.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  11. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    This should be a bumper sticker.
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  12. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Yeah, but none of us should start out in Jail.
    My take is his complaint is with the fourth, fifth, fiftieth time he gets the full monty--which is because of an abundance of correctness against being perceived as discriminating against non-white Anglo Saxons. He objects to being subjected to this because TSA doesn't know how to do other than profile if not what they are doing. He thinks he should be on a clear list after a point. Not because he's white, but because they should know who he is by now.
    The whole thing is back-asswards, of course. At least there is more movement from Mica et al...
     
  13. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Of course.

    I don't trust Mica. I've said why in other threads.
     
  14. N965VJ

    N965VJ Original Member

    What happens is that the people that have to go through this on a regular basis sit back and think "What does the government need from me to know I'm not a threat?" It's natural to look at places like TLV, databases, etc. as a solution. The sheer volume of commercial air traffic in the States makes this impossible, if you overlook the other Constitutional concerns.

    This whole mess - Scope 'N Gropes, making some animals more equal than others through Trusted Traveler PreCheck, etc. could have been avoided if the TSA knew how to write competent procurement and maintenance specifications for Explosive Trace Portals.
     
  15. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Well, what about a presumption of innocence? Let the non-trusted be focused upon--and not because of their credit report, or their race, etc.
    Tough luck on the Explosive Trace Portals; back to WTMD (and dogs).
     
  16. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    Exactly! It seems that people are all too often inclined to single out a group, usually Arabs (although they say Muslims, which is religion, not a race). Selecting the offending race will eventually become xenophobic. In fact it should be an issue of "probable cause" as it is (was) in law enforcement. Some level of screening can be justified, but treating everyone except FFs as criminals isn't a viable or equitable strategy.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  17. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    It is not helpful that the average American sheep can't tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  18. FaustsAccountant

    FaustsAccountant Original Member

    Nail + Head+Impact
     

Share This Page