TSA authorities can fine you $10,000 for leaving the airport

Undertoad · 11-14-2010, 03:17 PM

After refusing to go through the body scanner, and refusing to have his junk touched by a TSA agent, a man is threatened by airport security, who tell him he'll face a $10,000 fine and civil lawsuit.

They've gone too far. I'm actually tempted to action about this. Friends of mine are picketing/leafletting PHL the day before T-giving.

Cloud · 11-14-2010, 07:29 PM

there's apparently quite a backlash about the scanning machines--pilots refusing, grass roots movement, etc. Although this guy went in there primed to make a scene, imo, so I'm not too sympathetic to him.

xoxoxoBruce · 11-15-2010, 02:05 AM

He says he went there because the TSA website indicated there was no xray there.

glatt · 11-15-2010, 08:05 AM

There were 13,531,058 commercial passenger flights in 2008. If you take that number and multiply it out over the last 8 years, when security had gotten a lot tighter since 9/11, you get about 100 million US flights since 9/11 with not a single plane taken down by terrorists.

The tightened security since 9/11 has worked. Not a single plane has come down. 100 million!

The numbers are not a compelling argument that we need these new extremely invasive security techniques.

Our founding fathers wouldn't be able to recognize us. What a bunch of pussies this country has become. We are so afraid of an infinitesimal risk of terrorism that we are willing to give up all our personal freedoms.

Lamplighter · 11-15-2010, 08:57 AM

Amen !

Spexxvet · 11-15-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

Our founding fathers wouldn't be able to recognize us. What a bunch of pussies this country has become. We are so afraid of an infinitesimal risk of terrorism that we are willing to give up all our personal freedoms.

I agree. But the other side of the coin is that we should not overreact when terrorism does happen, which we do. Maybe we need to treat terrorism as a part of life.

Gravdigr · 11-17-2010, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

There were 13,531,058 commercial passenger flights in 2008. If you take that number and multiply it out over the last 8 years, when security had gotten a lot tighter since 9/11, you get about 100 million US flights since 9/11 with not a single plane taken down by terrorists.

The tightened security since 9/11 has worked. Not a single plane has come down. 100 million!

The numbers are not a compelling argument that we need these new extremely invasive security techniques.

Our founding fathers wouldn't be able to recognize us. What a bunch of pussies this country has become. We are so afraid of an infinitesimal risk of terrorism that we are willing to give up all our personal freedoms.

You prolly should work in there somewhere the number of planes hijacked/taken out from American soil also. You know, to justify all this extra security. I don't know how to begin to come up w/that number, but, I bet it's comparably small.

paraphrasing:

Quote:

Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither.

Where did I see that? The Cellar?

Undertoad · 11-15-2010, 09:20 AM

TSA screeners pat down three-year-old, putting her into a screaming fit of terror. Do you feel safe now?

classicman · 11-15-2010, 09:50 AM

FWIW - Anyone think terrorists wouldn't use a kid?

And even at three she looks like a little Muslim, doncha think?

Perry Winkle · 11-24-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

FWIW - Anyone think terrorists wouldn't use a kid?

Toddlers are about the size of a suitcase nuke.

Sundae · 11-15-2010, 09:55 AM

Shrug.
It's a three year old having a tantrum.
I'm not saying the checks are necessary for security, but if the checks are decided to be necessary then parents need to be aware and able to deal with it. I am assuming this child did not have any kind of syndrome that produced this reaction of course.

I've seen children in similar screaming fits in supermarkets/ shopping centres/ pubs - the culprits? Their own mothers.

I suggest that a certain amount of getting precious about children has lead to the increase in the compensation culture. Technically I am not supposed to hug or cuddle a child, touch their hair or help undressing (for PE) or dressing. In reality I do all of the above (inc wiping noses, washing off mud, admiring wobbly teeth etc) because children are people and in order to develop socially they need reactions to their behaviour.

Cloud · 11-15-2010, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Shrug.
It's a three year old having a tantrum.

(nods). oh . . . you mean the little girl?

I'd be happy to sacrifice my "modesty" in favor of not getting blown up. In fact, I'd prance naked through the airport if it would save lives. Don't be a pussy--go through the damn machine.

fargon · 11-15-2010, 10:14 AM

It's for crap like that is the reason I don't fly.

Undertoad · 11-15-2010, 10:16 AM

It's not sexual assault when the government does it.

Sundae · 11-15-2010, 10:18 AM

As I said above - I remove children's clothes. It's certainly not sexual assault. At least draw the line at intention.
In which case, neither was the clip.

11-14-2010, 03:17 PM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	TSA authorities can fine you $10,000 for leaving the airport After refusing to go through the body scanner, and refusing to have his junk touched by a TSA agent, a man is threatened by airport security, who tell him he'll face a $10,000 fine and civil lawsuit. They've gone too far. I'm actually tempted to action about this. Friends of mine are picketing/leafletting PHL the day before T-giving.

11-14-2010, 07:29 PM	#2
Cloud ... Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,360	there's apparently quite a backlash about the scanning machines--pilots refusing, grass roots movement, etc. Although this guy went in there primed to make a scene, imo, so I'm not too sympathetic to him. __________________ "Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will. And outlive the bastards!"

11-15-2010, 02:05 AM	#3
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	He says he went there because the TSA website indicated there was no xray there. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

11-15-2010, 09:50 AM	#9
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	FWIW - Anyone think terrorists wouldn't use a kid? And even at three she looks like a little Muslim, doncha think? __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

11-15-2010, 10:14 AM	#13
fargon Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: La Crosse, WI Posts: 8,924	It's for crap like that is the reason I don't fly. __________________ Annoy the ones that ignore you!!! I live a blessed life I Love my Country, I Fear the Government!!! Heavily medicated for the good of mankind.

11-15-2010, 08:05 AM	#4
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	There were 13,531,058 commercial passenger flights in 2008. If you take that number and multiply it out over the last 8 years, when security had gotten a lot tighter since 9/11, you get about 100 million US flights since 9/11 with not a single plane taken down by terrorists. The tightened security since 9/11 has worked. Not a single plane has come down. 100 million! The numbers are not a compelling argument that we need these new extremely invasive security techniques. Our founding fathers wouldn't be able to recognize us. What a bunch of pussies this country has become. We are so afraid of an infinitesimal risk of terrorism that we are willing to give up all our personal freedoms.

11-15-2010, 08:57 AM	#5
Lamplighter Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods Posts: 6,402	Amen !

11-15-2010, 09:20 AM	#8
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	TSA screeners pat down three-year-old, putting her into a screaming fit of terror. Do you feel safe now?

11-15-2010, 09:55 AM	#11
Sundae polaroid of perfection Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 24,185	Shrug. It's a three year old having a tantrum. I'm not saying the checks are necessary for security, but if the checks are decided to be necessary then parents need to be aware and able to deal with it. I am assuming this child did not have any kind of syndrome that produced this reaction of course. I've seen children in similar screaming fits in supermarkets/ shopping centres/ pubs - the culprits? Their own mothers. I suggest that a certain amount of getting precious about children has lead to the increase in the compensation culture. Technically I am not supposed to hug or cuddle a child, touch their hair or help undressing (for PE) or dressing. In reality I do all of the above (inc wiping noses, washing off mud, admiring wobbly teeth etc) because children are people and in order to develop socially they need reactions to their behaviour.

11-15-2010, 10:16 AM	#14
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It's not sexual assault when the government does it.

11-15-2010, 10:18 AM	#15
Sundae polaroid of perfection Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 24,185	As I said above - I remove children's clothes. It's certainly not sexual assault. At least draw the line at intention. In which case, neither was the clip.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)