1. #FlyForPink is the frequent flyers' effort in the fight against breast cancer.

    Join us in supporting screenings, early detection, treatment and research globally at FlyForPink.com



Rand Paul blocked at Airport By TSA

Discussion in 'Travel Security' started by MLW20, Jan 23, 2012.  |  Print Topic

  1. MLW20
    • Original Member

    MLW20 Gold Member

    jbcarioca likes this.
  2. Switch2

    Switch2 Silver Member

    I was about to post this, but the system wouldn't let me create a new thread!
     
    Gargoyle, jbcarioca and MLW20 like this.
  3. LarryInNYC

    LarryInNYC Gold Member

    It probably jerked on this way through the machine. . .
     
    jbcarioca and viguera like this.
  4. MLW20
    • Original Member

    MLW20 Gold Member

    Sorry! :)
    I am glad to see a politician take a stand against the TSA bullshit. They should be smart with who gets the patdown. Old ladies and babies are probably not the problem.
    I just wonder- if an average person refused the patdown and made a stink about it, what would the consequences be???
     
    jbcarioca, COFlyerCLE and jageach like this.
  5. viguera
    • Original Member

    viguera Gold Member

    He/she would probably be denied access and sent on their way home. Didn't that happen to that guy in San Diego a while back? I think he was ejected from the airport.
     
    jbcarioca and MLW20 like this.
  6. HaveMilesWillTravel
    • Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    I was listening with half an ear to MSNBC earlier and they mentioned that the nudeoscope reported something on his leg. I was surprised that he was okay with going through the scanner, but not the pat-down. What does he suggest is the right course of action for the TSA if the scanner reports something?

    (note: I am deliberately saying "report" instead of "detect" because the latter implies to me that there really is something).
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  7. LarryInNYC

    LarryInNYC Gold Member

    I'm sorry, this just cheeses me off.

    It's entirely reasonable to expect that someone determined to blow up a place would place a bomb with someone who is "above suspicion" to get it through security. This actually known to have happened in the 1990s when a Jordanian terrorist planted a bomb in the radio of his pregnant fiancee without her knowledge. Of course, who would suspect a pregnant woman of trying to bring down a plane? She should not have been subject to the search that found the bomb, should she?

    It is very, very easy to take pot shots at the people who have the difficult job of protecting air traffic. If you don't think the security is worth the couple of planes a decade that might be blown up, or if you believe that it's completely ineffective in stopping bombers, you're entitled to that opinion.

    But, if you want an attempt to be made to prevent airplane bombings please let the people who actually know what the dangers are set the policies.
     
    legalalien, Muerl, harvson3 and 2 others like this.
  8. MLW20
    • Original Member

    MLW20 Gold Member

    Larry- Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I do appreciate your point stated.
    I had not heard about the man planting a bomb on his pregnant wife. That is really sick and definitely changes my opinion on things. My comment was more a general statement but I guess you can't put anything past a fanatic terrorist.

    Sorry for "cheesing you off" (not exactly sure what that means) :)
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  9. LarryInNYC

    LarryInNYC Gold Member

    When you consider the kind of mind it takes to deliberately plan the murder of 300 people, you realize it's not an easy matter to figure out what they might or might not do.

    It means "to upset with overtones of irrationality".
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  10. MLW20
    • Original Member

    MLW20 Gold Member

    Very true...
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  11. Captain Oveur
    • Original Member

    Captain Oveur Gold Member

    Figuring out which side to be on in this case is like choosing between gonorrhea and syphilis.

    This will be swept under the rug in the next several hours. In most of the country, Rand Paul is viewed at a nutjob. Another Republican debate is tonight, Florida has its primary this week, and The State of The Union Address will happen.

    Trumping all of that in this world of infotainment -- who knows what Lindsay Lohan might do.
     
    Gaucho, TAHKUCT, misman and 2 others like this.
  12. HaveMilesWillTravel
    • Original Member

    HaveMilesWillTravel Gold Member

    I don't know if I would call him a nutjob (it seems like the wrong term for him), but I am definitely anything but a fan of Rand Paul.

    That said, I think it's possible to look at this scenario without even considering his name.

    According to http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/sen-rand-paul-stopped-tenn-airport-security-15420916#.Tx4LDGNAaxE

    "Paul went through a millimeter wave machine that uses a generic outline of a body for all passengers, according to a TSA official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss agency screening procedures. When an alarm goes off, TSA officers target the area of the body that triggered the alarm and pat down the passenger."

    I actually for the first (and only) time recently walked through one of those millimeter wave machines, as a "science experiment". I wanted to see if it could detect the medical hardware implanted in my leg. I "failed" the scanner test. The display attached to the machine showed suspicious areas roughly (but not exactly) in the right place of the body outline. I ended up getting a modified enhanced pat-down -- just the legs. I didn't ask for a re-scan (though after today's incident, I probably would have just to see if I got treated differently). In any case, now I have another reason not to go through the machines. If I have to be groped anyway, I might as well get the full monty.

    Gingrich and Romney (and the talking heads dissecting every word) are so much more entertaining.
     
    TAHKUCT likes this.
  13. Dovster
    • Original Member

    Dovster Gold Member

    As I recall, it was his fiancee and the terrorist was Palestinian, not Jordanian. It was an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv and the bomb was discovered as a result of El Al security questioning the woman before letting her board.
     
    MLW20 likes this.
  14. avflyer
    • Original Member

    avflyer Silver Member

    Yup! trust big brother, after all, he has your best interest in mind. Now I will go home and take my SOMA.
     
    YULtide likes this.
  15. legalalien
    • Original Member

    legalalien Gold Member

    He was Jordanian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair.
     
  16. LarryInNYC

    LarryInNYC Gold Member

    Oh please.

    When it comes to my safety, and that of my family, I would rather trust the people hired to keep me safe than the kind of logic that says "gee, no terrorist is smart enough to build a bomb into a wheelchair, therefore I'll sit in my mom's basement and make fun of any TSA agent who searches a wheelchair, ha ha ha, I'm smarter than anybody!"

    It may come as a surprise to you, but there are actual people — and not stupid ones — actually trying to blow up airplanes. I'm certainly willing to discuss the proper boundary between safety and freedom but to suggest that airport security — even when less than perfectly ept — is some kind of Big Brother plot to make the public docile is a non-starter.
     
  17. avflyer
    • Original Member

    avflyer Silver Member

    OK...I'm not saying we don't need airport security, I AM saying that there is a lot of BS surrounding the security theater that heightens the general public's perception that there is a legitimate reason for all of the malarkey they put us through to board a plane. I firmly believe that most of the nonsense is just job justification. Strip the process down to the essentials and get rid of the arm draggers and mouth breathers. ESPECIALLY get rid of the people screaming "NO LIQUIDS, TAKE YOUR SHOES OFF, LAPTOPS OUT" What a waste of money. Posting an in-queue video would take care of all of that eliminating one payroll from the budget or at least shifting that position to something productive.

    A few examples just from my empirical observations:

    An elderly gentleman was in front of me at LAX T2. He was told he could not bring his frozen bottle of OJ in under the liquids rule. Not only was the TSA douchebag incorrect as this is a clear violation TSA rules. It also amused me that this moron thought he could change the laws of physics declaring a sold a liquid. This gentleman was a diabetic and obviously not someone with unlimited resources. Poor guy had to go in and buy a $9.99 bottle of juice from Starbucks. However, I personally felt much safer.

    Some idiot decided asking me to elocute my name upon presentation of my identification would prevent Al Quaeda from showing up in the cockpit. So for a few weeks, hundreds of thousands of people were asked to say their name before going through the line. Again, I was secure in the knowledge that I was being kept safe because I was able to read my identification and say the words on it.

    Yes, the TSA want's you to believe that we need them, that without them all is doomed and every stupid thing they do is necessary to keep us intact.

    Just one last thing. It is my opinion that the screening process at SFO is much more pleasant, the people much more professional than anywhere else. Not that it is a walk through the daisies, the attitude of the folks working there is just superior. Could it be because it is a private company providing the service? NAAAAAA
     
    YULtide likes this.
  18. LarryInNYC

    LarryInNYC Gold Member

    Honestly, that's exactly how I read your original statement — a blanket condemnation of airport security procedures.

    Just the opposite. The long lines and frustrated people (as well as the under trained and under educated agents) are the result of not devoting enough resources to properly staffing the problem. There's a legitimate issue as to whether it's possible to provide the resources needed to appropriately deal with this issue, but if you do want to deal with it properly you'd need to staff up (and upgrade the pay scale) pretty significantly.

    Your examples are simply themselves an example of everyone being an expert. In particular, if exceptions are made for diabetic liquids, are you under the impression that the guys with the bombs are not smart enough to show up with the proper paperwork to demonstrate that they qualify? Or to use an actual diabetic to get something on board a plane?

    Now you're back to saying that we don't need airport security.

    I'm not concerned about how the security is provided, just that it is provided.
     
  19. avflyer
    • Original Member

    avflyer Silver Member

    N
    Not agreeing with you at all. First off, LAS has some very entertaining in-queue videos that explain the procedures and they seem to work. As to the diabetic, my point was the "liquid" was a solid. The man, or his family prepared him for security and even that didn't work for him. TSA policy clearly addresses frozen items and allows them through. In fact there are exceptions to the liquids ban e.g. saline solution and "personal lubricants" both of which, I believe are allowed in unlimited quantities. So why hasn't the Taliban disguised a bottle of noxious liquid as KY yet? And yes, I am saying if you are a diabetic you should be allowed through with the items you need to survive.

    I have never said we don't need security. Perhaps if the Homeland Security (don't get me started there) would stop worrying about the size of the TSA and their jobs and start considering the needs of the flying public, they would switch back to private contractors providing the service along the lines of the SFO operation. My understanding is these guys are heavily supervised by TSA and conform to all procedures. Yet, they make the experience much more pleasant because they know if they get complaints, they are out. TSA functionaries have no such impetus....obviously.
     
    YULtide likes this.
  20. Dovster
    • Original Member

    Dovster Gold Member

    Thanks. After reading your post I decided to refresh my memory and did some reading about the case on various websites. It turns out that he has quite a mixed background:

    1. He is a Jordanian of Palestinian extraction.
    2. He was trained in a Palestinian terrorist camp in Syria.
    3. He was working for Syrian Intelligence (which provided him with the explosives).
     
    MLW20 and Chimpy like this.
  21. Captain Oveur
    • Original Member

    Captain Oveur Gold Member

    There's no denying that some of the comments are taken to the level that you describe.

    Regardless of how people communicate their disliking of the TSA, there are irrefutable facts out there. Such as GAO-administered tests that have the TSA missing prohibited items at a rate of 60% to 90%. When an organization positions itself as being the last line of defense to terrorism (I'm digressing on that point), there is NO excuse for such a miserable track record on finding prohibited items.

    When the TSA makes a mistake in letting prohibited items through, the screener goes through "remedial training," What does it say when such a laissez-faire attitude is put forward in a situation that the TSA itself positions as being so crucial?

    Think about it in terms of pilots. What they do is every bit as crucial, if not more, to the safety of everyone on-board. If they had a 60-90% track record of failure, would they have a job? Would they even have a pilot's license? Marvin Renslow made a mistake over Buffalo three years ago, and for that not only does he not have a job, he has a tombstone.

    Since the TSA began 10 years ago, they have yet to put in-line better x-ray machines at all of the airports they serve. Yet, in those 10 years, they have had four uniform changes. Hard to believe that "your safety is our priority" line when you think of that.

    I have more faith in the work that people do who are not even in the airports. The alphabet soup agencies do a lot of work before the bad guys get into the airports. THAT is where the vast majority of work is done.

    To think the TSA has, or ever will, save us from terrorists is a completely uneducated assumption.
     
    avflyer likes this.
  22. avflyer
    • Original Member

    avflyer Silver Member

    Next thing you know, we will find out his fiancee was from Remulac

    [​IMG]
     
    sobore and YULtide like this.
  23. icurhere2
    • Original Member

    icurhere2 Gold Member

  24. TAHKUCT
    • Original Member

    TAHKUCT Gold Member

    Thanks for sharing. Nice footage. Amazed how the security camera works with the huge column in from that blocks almost 25% of the view.:rolleyes:
     
    Gargoyle likes this.
  25. icurhere2
    • Original Member

    icurhere2 Gold Member

    The camera was BNA monitored, not TSA monitored. We will likely never see footage from any TSA recordings.
     

Share This Page