If I need to fly I will charter a private pilot, even if it costs more, there won't be any TSA scanners if one decides to travel in this manner.
Travelers have the right to opt for a pat-down instead of exposing themselves to the radiation and prying eyes of an anonymous TSA agent in another room. But as ACLU Legislative Counsel Chris Calabrese told USA Today: “Are we giving people two intolerable actions at airports? They can be virtually strip-searched or endure a really aggressive grope?”
That’s exactly what the TSA is doing, in its latest bit of security theater designed to try to make us feel safer without actually increasing safety. And it’s really no choice at all. As Goldberg points out, “the effectiveness of pat-downs does not matter very much, because the obvious goal of the TSA is to make the pat-down embarrassing enough for the average passenger that the vast majority of people will choose high-tech humiliation over the low-tech ball check.” In fact, Goldberg reports that he was told directly by a screener: “That’s what we’re hoping for. We’re trying to get everyone into the machine.”When the ACLU takes a reasonable position, it is worth consideration.
Just ask Janet.
Abolish the TSA, let consumers and airlines determine the method and manner of security. End unconstitutional invasions of privacy. End unreasonable searches and seizures.
If you are unwilling to go through the body scanner or be patted down perhaps you should take the train or a bus. People need to get over it!!
I know this has probably been posted a “million” times, but I think some old guy once said this:
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”
I believe his name was Ben Franklin...
Are we now a nation of cowards?
Heh...in John Tyner’s video of his encounter-—the TSO at one point insists that passengers give up their 4th and 5th Amendment rights when they buy the ticket. I don’t think so....
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t care if they can see thru my clothes during airport screening as long as it makes flying safer.
Isn’t this the same as wiretapping after 9/11: We agree to give up some degree of privacy to ensure safety. Libs loved to hate wiretapping, but I really don’t care about it. What do I have to hide? (I guess there’s always the risk that fascist people like Obama Thugs use it against citizens).
Can someone plz explain why conservatives who would normally be all for diligence in security procedures are against this?
After all, after 9/11 and with raghead suicide bombers/hijackers, this is a different world.
A four seat version for those with their private pilots license would work as well.
Yes you do not fly if you absolutely have to get their.
But the point is, we need a free market alternative to basically say up yours Janet that is a lot quicker than 70 mph on the highway.
Something that cruises 125 mph can make a big difference in the amount of time it takes in getting to where you want to go, and if the weather stinks, don't go the whole IFR thing is just to much of a barrier @ this point IMHO.
I would love for the TSA in court explain why these searches are ‘reasonable’ or that they have ‘probable cause’. They can’t win either way. And then explain why if it is reasonable to assume all passengers are suspected terrorists, to give muslim women just a head and neck pat down? If we are all equally terrorists why compromise everyone’s safety by not giving a class of person a thorough screening? How is that safe?
This is all bullsh1t.
This all sounds so very familiar...
I have been hollering this for a few years now. No one listens to me...so I no longer fly.