Full body scanners

[ingmansinc]

How about special flights for those who don't wish to be screened. The flight of non-screened travelers is about to take off, we suggest that you step back away from the windows of the terminal.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

John, there are lots of frivolous topics here in the lounge but this NOT one of them.

Your concern is well founded, Capt. But what happens when the next Panty Bomber blows up 300 people standing in line at the terminal rather than in the air? Will that be defined as "The System Worked" ? If not, then where do we place the next set of body scanners... and the next? At what point would it be reasonable to stop scanning ourselves?

IMO, we need to stay on top of the policies, procedures and gadgets we currently have that were designed to stop the Panty Bomber before he got anywhere near America.

The topic of body scanners reminds me of lawmakers dreaming up another gun control law to distract from failure to enforce current law.

 

[John Sobieski]

seek, and ye shall find

John, there are lots of frivolous topics here in the lounge but this NOT one of them. I asked Bassamatic a serious question and get this nonsense back from you. I guess you think your response is funny, I don't but then, opinions vary. Your vague quote about the scanners not showing explosives is contrary to everything I have seen and has no source cited to back it up....

Since you have an open mind about the efficacy of body scans and other forms of airport screening, I took the liberty of finding an underlying source for the link I used above.

Why is my modest proposal nonesense? It is non-invasive, would save the airlines money, and remove the possibility that a terrorist could bring down an airliner mid-flight. We win! Was there some specific aspect of my proposal that you think needs adjustment? After all, it's "hard to appreciate other values from the grave."

 

[anglaispierre]

I have not read all this thread, but have seen some garbage. There is a simple solution for all who do not wish to be scanned, searched, x-rayed etc. Don't fly. If the safety of everyone on the plane is not a concern for you, you are a selfish and stupid person who should not be allowed on a bus, let alone a plane.

 

[John Sobieski]

hear, hear!

I have not read all this thread, but have seen some garbage. There is a simple solution for all who do not wish to be scanned, searched, x-rayed etc. Don't fly. If the safety of everyone on the plane is not a concern for you, you are a selfish and stupid person who should not be allowed on a bus, let alone a plane.

I wholeheartedly agree!

However, I wonder why Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was allowed to board Flight 253? Not only did he seem selfishly and stupidly unconcerned about the safety of his fellow passengers, but he allegedly tried to destroy the plane and kill everyone on board! Including his selfish self!

I hope in the future, he'll choose not to fly, OR take the bus. Perhaps if he had answered a questionnaire before boarding, the authorities could have judged whether he cared enough about his fellow passengers to be allowed to fly, or take a bus.

 

[Capt Steve]

Your concern is well founded, Capt. But what happens when the next Panty Bomber blows up 300 people standing in line at the terminal rather than in the air? Will that be defined as "The System Worked" ? If not, then where do we place the next set of body scanners... and the next? At what point would it be reasonable to stop scanning ourselves?

IMO, we need to stay on top of the policies, procedures and gadgets we currently have that were designed to stop the Panty Bomber before he got anywhere near America.

The topic of body scanners reminds me of lawmakers dreaming up another gun control law to distract from failure to enforce current law.

I think we all agree the current system is flawed and in serious need of some tweaking. Our current system works...just not all the time. Had the various agencies whose job it is to protect against this sort of terrorist threat been doing their job, sharing information and just plain paying attention he never would have been allowed on the plane. I wish these agencies would pay more attention to the methods/success Israel has had. For me, a scanner is just another tool that can be used. Will it stop every dedicated Jihadist? I rather doubt it, but if it stops just one, that is a lot of lives saved.

John, Thanks for the link and like I said opinions vary. The scanners are just another tool that can be used. As pointed out in your link they may not detect every threat but that hardly means they have no viable use. Discarding or simply not using a tool that is known to work when the job is not done just seems foolish. Sorry but your B-RPE plans sounds like so much bad gas (pun intended, right back at ya). (o;

No matter what we do someone who is willing to die in the process, for whatever reason, is ultimately going to be very tough to thwart. For now I favor doing everything possible from more sky marshals to scanners to profiling and as noted many times here...if you don't like it, don't fly.

 

[John Sobieski]

by any means necessary!

Our current system works...just not all the time.

You nailed it! Again! Did you see this example of post-Christmas airport security? I fully endorse the initiative of the TSA agent who confiscated the factory original cans of Play-Doh from the 3-year old boy. Clearly, we have trained our guardians to make the key strategic time-critical decisions that keep us all safe! The government agent couldn't trust the common sense conclusion that he was simply dealing with a 3-year old boy and his parents transporting a popular TSA-approved harmless toy. This family might have been an AQAP cell - highly trained in death and destruction in Yemen. Better safe than sorry - confiscate the Play-Doh! The system worked! No plastic explosives got onto that flight! After all, you can't enjoy Play-Doh from the grave!

We win!

Discarding or simply not using a tool that is known to work when the job is not done just seems foolish. Sorry but your B-RPE plans sounds like so much bad gas (pun intended, right back at ya). (o;

I clearly need to work harder on my modest proposal. I've got some improvements on the drawing board.

 

[fedret]

I don't fly, don't intend to fly commersially anymore, etc. Primarily because what I have seen of TSA is that it and its parent Organization DHS are the biggest government Chinese Fire Drills ever. W took several good Federal agencies and created this mess, and it is not getting any better under the present administration.
Folks it is not the gadgets that will keep us safe, it is the use of trained people and that valuable tool, Profiling! What is just about the safest airline to fly on? ELAL, they profile, and it works. After the profile if you have to use the gadgets.
However, you need to get trained people with good judgement to screen people, and that is what TSA lacks. As long as the clueless people in the suits running DHS continue to be in charge nothing will get better.
Myself, I will not fly, I will not be body scanned. If I cna't drive somewhere I just will not go. I dwill not put my safety in the hands of so much demonstrated incompetance. Fedret

 

[tops]

I have not been on a plane since Sept. 11, 2001. I refuse to be poked, proded or searched by some clown just so some people can "feel safe". When I am driving I don't tarry in states that don't want me to have a gun and I don't go to Canada or Mexico. Why spend time where I am not wanted and why use a means of transportation that treats me like trash? Larry

 

[Careby]

There is a serious lapse in logic at play here. We aren't choosing between privacy and security. We're choosing between privacy and the illusion of security. The terrorists have already won. They never intended to destroy us all. They intend to destroy our way of life by playing on our fears. They are making great strides.

When I hear there is a list of 500,000+ suspected terrorists, two things occur to me. One, with numbers that big the law of averages is against us, and two, maybe we need to work on the root of the problem rather than the symptoms. When I hear that passengers from certain high-risk countries are being subjected to additional safeguards, I conclude that normal procedures are not really sufficient, therefore anyone from anywhere else that may intend mischief is being given a free pass. When I hear the product of the full body scanners is a visual display that a screener watches all shift, I get the idea that success is a function of their vigilance, and their ability to notice a small detail on one of thousands of individuals scanned each day.

I do not know what was intended by the "mastermind" of the underwear bomber's mission. Would it be too far-fetched to think it was deliberately intended to fail, just to throw airport security into disarray? Regardless of the intent, it was a big success for the bad guys.

There is no such thing as security from terrorism, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. Promising safety is a billion dollar business, and the life's blood of many a politician.

 

[davevand]

There are two problems I see with these scanners.
1- the last bomber came into the US from over seas where the scanners are not used.

2- the scanners are only as good as the minimum wage employees the operate them

 

[michael thornton]

so true, they will only be looking at what they want to see, i wouldnt want that job!