Strip Searches in Idaho

 

1. Yes this piece of tripe (to imply that the evil bushitlerburtonco Patriot Act is wildly out of control- which court house screening isn’t really a result of) get’s run across the msm - however US Armed Forces who want to remove their uniform pieces properly and in private (not wanting to be ‘out’ of uniform in public) are scorned by TSA and the story (mostly from 2002/3 as soldiers went on leave before deploying and/or R&R mid-tour leaves) - never saw the light of day.

   When my son - who has a prosethtic leg and a zillion staples still inside his body - was on jury duty - I simply told the screeners the first day - he would set off their alarm & why. They let him step around and ran the scanner - surprizingly the only touch off was his leg. Although at the Federal Bldg (for SSI appointment) - he did set theirs off along his shoulders too.

   Bias, I don’t see no stinkin bias.

   Posted by wardmama4       10/05/2007  at  08:58 AM  



2. The article pretty clearly shows the screeners got a ‘hit’ on something (she claimed was her bra supports) and had to verify the metal detected.  She very clearly did it right there in public; the screeners suggested she find a private place.

   Now the husband is claiming the screeners weren’t professional.  It’s the woman’s childish action here that is questionable, not the screeners rightfully trying to perform the task for which they are paid.

   Anything to make a ruckus, I suppose.

   Posted by Archie       10/05/2007  at  02:56 PM  



3. Well they are not all the same - I was called to federal jury duty and each and every time I came through the metal detectors something “different” triggered them, even though the same thing was in the bag day in and day out.  Heck I even told them who I worked for and what I do and I still got a pat down. 

   The problem IMHO is that these people are trained on the same type of crap the TSA is....reactive training instead of proactive.

   Posted by Ecolihapns       10/06/2007  at  09:20 AM  



4. Just out of curiousity, how does one provide building or aircraft security - in the specific case of preventing weapons or explosives brought into the secure area - in a ‘proactive’ manner? 

   Or is that the point, we shouldn’t be looking for weapons or bombs being introduced into aircraft or government buildings that may be a target for one reason or another?

   Posted by Archie       10/07/2007  at  01:09 AM  



5. Archie -

   Yes actually; as someone who resides in Europe you typically will see a completely different approach to security then here in the U.S.  Or if you ever traveled on ElAl you will see even a more drastic change.  They take on a proactive stance in identifying characteristics and mannerism that typical “bad guys” display.  They read into trending patterns in the intelligence and they proactively attempt to identify, “what’s next?”

   We in the U.S. have a mentality - ok someone tried to blow up a shoe = screen all shoes; someone tried to mix greater than 3 oz = not allowing greater than 3 oz of liquid; someone used a sharp object = ban all sharp objects and only allow plastic.  The funny thing about the last one are if you go into any quality, high end kitchen supply store they have a wide variety of knifes that are made out of plastic.  Incredibly sharp and undetectable by our current methods. 

   I have seen that we are to PC for our own good.  We try to randomly identify subjects that want to do us harm and no longer want to use common sense.  When you have 20+ years of a certain description or group that wants to do us harm; it is no longer called profiling...it is called in cop talk...description of a suspect.

   Posted by Ecolihapns       10/07/2007  at  10:24 AM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.