Political Discussion: Airport Security Issue: What do you think?

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#1
With all the debate lately on airport security I'm really curious to see where some of you stand on the issue.

I'm a pretty conservative guy, but I could care less if someone pats down my junk in the name of tighter security.
 

Trip

Moderator, , , Webmaster of: Rabbit Ears
Staff member
#2
We've placed safety above freedom; Patrick Henry would be ashamed. When freedom was the top concern, as long as we had our freedom the terrorists didn't win.

Now we've moved to goalposts to say we're going to be safe, and that a single lost life as a result of terrorism is a bad thing. Now all the terrorists have to do to win is kill a single person and they can claim victory over us.

The airlines should implement their own security as they see fit on their individual aircraft. Anything beyond that is a waste of time and money and lets the terrorists win.

- Trip
 

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#3
By your account, it sounds like the terrorists win either way. Too much security = loss of freedom. Not enough security = loss of life.

Does 5 minutes of inconvenience mean that we've lost our freedom? It's not like they're scanning our brains for thoughts.
 

Trip

Moderator, , , Webmaster of: Rabbit Ears
Staff member
#4
One of the namesakes of my highschool once said "Give me liberty, or give me death." I still believe it.

- Trip
 

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#5
One of the namesakes of my highschool once said "Give me liberty, or give me death." I still believe it.

- Trip
Dieing to protect freedom is one thing, but are you really taking away one's rights before they board to check them for weapons that could harm other passengers?

There are other rights that are taken away from us every day when we do something that concerns the safety of others. People do not have the right to build bombs, is that a violation of their rights?
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#6
Let me say this off the bat. I dont mind some privacy invasive or intrusive security measures, to combat terrorism.

The problem is that these are being implemented to protect Political Correctness. When we implement these types of programs, the terrorists win, by causing massive costs in time and treasure to their enemies.

We should be implementing criminal terrorist profiling, like the Israelis use. Which is also intrusive and brings ups civil rights and constitutional concerns. But it is proven effective and it is less of a burden on the vast majority of travellers.

We need to be concerned about who is getting on the plane, not focussed on what everyone is bringing on the plane.

Furthermore, as we can see, as soon as Muslim Jihadis develop some competence they will be sending packages in the cargo holds that will take down planes. We should be scanning packages better. But...

In the long run, the only way to protect non Muslims from Muslim Supremacist violence is to isolate Muslims and contain them in separate areas. Discontinue service between the West and Muslim lands. Allow non Muslim refugees and apostates to seek assylum. Deport all Muslims from non Muslim lands.

Then support the Islamic Reformation within Muslim territory. It is criminal to subject non Muslims to this ideological violence. We shouldnt be fighting the Islamic Reformation in European and Anglo Christian cities and towns. That is downright dumb.
 
Last edited:

Trip

Moderator, , , Webmaster of: Rabbit Ears
Staff member
#7
In 2009, more than 23,000 people died in automobile wrecks, most of which were completely preventable. SB-10-44

Lightning strikes? On average over the last 50 years, 90 per year. Death Statistics

Terrorist attacks? 1 person died. Did not occur on an airplane. List of terrorist incidents, 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We waste trillions of dollars and go through all kinds of disrespectful nonsense in the name of this security theater. The Israelis, who have actual serious terrorism problems unlike us, manage to not violate the privacy of every person who walks in the building while still being reasonably secure. Instead of learning from the Israelis and hiring competent investigative sort of people, we throw billions of dollars at corporations to produce body scanning machines and have to make opting out as unpleasant as possible to encourage people to use them so the money isn't wasted. It's a scam that doesn't increase our security.

- Trip
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#9
Trip, you cant equate accidental deaths to acts of murder or mass murder.

If the Klan was lynching 500 Negroes a year in this country, would you be making such ludicrous arguments, as "well 23,000 people die in car accidents a year."
 
Last edited:

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#10
The Israelis, who have actual serious terrorism problems unlike us, manage to not violate the privacy of every person who walks in the building while still being reasonably secure. Instead of learning from the Israelis and hiring competent investigative sort of people, we throw billions of dollars at corporations to produce body scanning machines and have to make opting out as unpleasant as possible to encourage people to use them so the money isn't wasted. It's a scam that doesn't increase our security.
Trip you and I agree, but we are coming from different places.

The Israeli method is violation of civil rights, its just targeted profiling...which leaves most people free from harassment, but not a targeted group....often innocent people just minding their own business.

While I am sure that there is some merit to the "Corporate Profits" argument, the main reason why this route has been pursued (and make no mistake this route has been the preferred modus operandi since 9/11, it has just gotten more and more egregious) over the profiling modus operandi. It's political correctness and Leftist non-sense. And any move to Israeli style security will be vociferously opposed by all sorts of Leftist groups and their identity politics minority allies, including massive lawfare appealing to Leftwing activist judges. Because going down this path, leads to the destruction of Political Correctness, not just as it concerns Islam and Muslim, but every other minority and "historically disadvantaged" group in the West. It undermines the whole New Left Cultural Marxist project.
 

Trip

Moderator, , , Webmaster of: Rabbit Ears
Staff member
#11
Trip, you cant equate accidental deaths to acts of murder or mass murder.
"Accidental" implies cannot be prevented. Most car wrecks are preventable. The linked source states that 55% of deaths would be prevented with use of seat belts. How many are DUI related? Cell phone related? How many are truly accidents without fault?

Meh, this is my last post on the subject. I forgot how much I hate debating.

- Trip
 
Last edited:

Jason Fritz

Administrator
Staff member
#12
"Accidental" implies cannot be prevented. Most car wrecks are preventable. The linked source states that 55% of deaths would be prevented with use of seat belts. How many are DUI related? Cell phone related? How many are truly accidents without fault?

Meh, this is my last post on the subject. I forgot how much I hate debating.

- Trip
I've been actually debating with some friends on FB about this very issue, though I side more on EV and Aaron's thoughts. My opinion holds a little less validity because I've actually developed a fear of flying since 9/11, but at least you've made some good points in this thread.
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#13
"Accidental" implies cannot be prevented. Most car wrecks are preventable. The linked source states that 55% of deaths would be prevented with use of seat belts. How many are DUI related? Cell phone related? How many are truly accidents without fault?

Meh, this is my last post on the subject. I forgot how much I hate debating.

- Trip
I love debating.

You just described the path of good intentions to totalitarianism, Trip.

Liberty (such as the Right to Keep and Bear Arms which also protects Liberty) also has a cost associated with it in security. The trade off is that this right is necessary as a check and balance in the system to protect Liberty. It also makes common criminals more dangerous, but likewise it reduces common criminality.

You are correct that Liberty requires that security not be absolute.
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#14
My expulsion of Muslims from the West is a radical proposition, but it is where we will end up, I have no doubt about that. Islam is what it is a Violent Supremacist Aggressive Ideology which seeks to impose Shariah Law and Muslim Domination on all Others as ill treated second class citizens. Muslims will keep pushing Islam, sometimes violently and oftimes through democratic processes including the ballot box and the courts, until this is the only available outcome.

Ive debated and debated this with all sorts of people, (my favorites being the so called "Decent Left" especially to be found over at Harry's Place.)
 

Trip

Moderator, , , Webmaster of: Rabbit Ears
Staff member
#15
I know I said that the previous post was my last, but I think you missed my point and I want to clarify.

While the point you took from it is apt and I don't have an argument with it, my point was that if we spent as much money on highway safety as we do on airline terrorism, we would save many more lives. Vastly increased marketing campaigns about not drinking and driving, safer automobiles, free hands-free kits, etc. The "lives per dollar" ratio would be significantly better.

- Trip
 

EscapeVelocity

Moderator, , Webmaster of EV's Antenna Blog
#16
Blame the Agents of Islam, not the Corporations. Place blame where it belongs.

Liberty and Security cant be reduced to a Lives per Dollar ratio. That is my point. Liberty if it means anything, is the right to make poor choices....and specifically not to be free of the consequences of those choices. When cigarettes are banned, your liberty is reduced, but your health is protected. Seems like a good policy, right? However multiply that good intentions policy by 100 million good intention policies and you end up at totalitarianism. Millions of tiny steps from liberty to tyranny, each one by themselves seemingly miniscule and insignificant, but added together become a tyranny no man would willingly endure. This BTW, is the modus operandi of the Islamization of the West. How about those nice Muslim footbaths in the airport? Or the toilets that no longer face Mecca in the prisons, and so on and so forth.

Hope that makes sense.
 
Last edited:

Fringe Reception

Super Moderator, Chief Content Editor
Staff member
#17
I think it is absurd for security to focus equally upon every person, regardless of their age. To my knowledge there has never been a 4 year old boy involved with trying to explode his tallywhacker on an airplane or anywhere else. Its time to stop the 'politically correct security' methods and focus on profiling.

Some of that is currently being done: did the person who purchased travel tickets pay with cash? Was this a ticket for a one-way flight? Do they have carry-on or other baggage? Travel history must be added to the equation. If more in-depth scrutiny turns up predominately Muslim men between 18 and 30 years of age, then those men should be scrutinized, not 80 year old Norweigen Grandmothers.

If this invasive scrutiny is allowed to continue, what's next? Body cavity searches? Another unanswered question is what about the long-term effects to human bodies who have to pass thru the new 'scanners' on a regular basis?

Although this was years ago, shortly before her death I took my elderly Mother to the airport to say goodby to my Sister. Mom was restricted to a wheelchair and she was forced to walk (drag herself) thru their scanner to be able to get to the outer concourse. I walked thru the scanner and I was 'deemed 'OK' but I was not allowed to help her get thru the test by helping support her weight. It was the last time she walked without a 'walker' or an assistant.

Jim


 
Top