ADVERTISEMENT

The Ultimate Folly

Belluno

All American
Jun 6, 2001
3,618
845
113
I take around 50 flights a year. My wife is on a plane even more frquently, so aircraft safety is of great concern. This is an editorial from today's Washington Time, addressing a situation that has long been discussed in some quarters. Well worth the read, and if it is true, we are beyond hope as a nation.

Note to terrorists: Next time, wear a hijab. The Department of Homeland Security reportedly is giving special exemptions to their "enhanced pat-down" policy to Muslim women wearing the hijab or other form-concealing garments.

Last week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a "travel advisory" noting that women who are patted down "should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down." It's unclear why CAIR believes TSA frisking must be Shariah-compliant. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to deny that such exemptions existed when CNS News asked her about them on Monday, saying instead that "adjustments will be made where they need to be made" and that "there will be more to come" on this issue.

A fatwa issued in February by Islamic scholars at the Fiqh Council of North America forbad observant Muslims from going through full-body scanners. The council stated, "It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women. Islam highly emphasizes modesty and considers it part of faith. The Quran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts." The alternative to the highly revealing and intrusive body scanners is the similarly invasive pat-down, which is objectionable to everyone regardless of religion. Reports of TSA officers placing their hands inside peoples' pants and conducting full skin-to-skin frisks have only heightened the general sense of disgust at this unprecedented government intrusion.

Exemptions for Muslim women wearing traditional garb may be the brainchild of Mohamed Elibiary, who recently was made a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Mr. Elibiary is president and chief executive officer of the Texas-based Freedom and Justice Foundation and a self-styled "de-radicalization expert" whose star has risen during the Obama presidency. He previously was appointed to Homeland Security's Countering Violent Extremism Working Group and has testified before Congress as an expert on Muslim radicalism - a topic he seems to know well.

In December 2004, Mr. Elibiary spoke at a conference honoring the life and works of the "great Islamic visionary," Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In 2008, Mr. Elibiary denounced the conviction of Hamas-connected members of the Holy Land Foundation for material support of terrorism. Most alarmingly, Mr. Elibiary is an admirer of the work of Sayyid Qutb, the intellectual and spiritual godfather of modern jihadism. Mr. Elibiary argues that Qutb is greatly misunderstood. "Many Westerners who've read Qutb's and many others' work," Mr. Elibiary wrote, "see the potential for a strong spiritual rebirth that's truly ecumenical allowing all faiths practiced in America to enrich us and motivate us to serve God better by serving our fellow man more."

No one who has read Qutb's work can mistake it for anything but an all-out assault on the American way of life and a call for a global Islamic takeover. The 9/11 Commission noted Qutb's role as an inspiration to al Qaeda and concluded that, "No middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan. All Muslims - as he defined them - therefore must take up arms in this fight. Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction." Qutb - who lived in the United States as a student in the late 1940s - developed a comprehensive anti-American ideology that's widely cited as the basis for the contemporary violent Islamic extremism with which America is at war.

Qutb promoted violent, predatory Islamic internationalism with a clear voice. If Mr. Elibiary is one of his disciples, he has no business being anywhere in government, let alone as an adviser at the uppermost reaches of an agency that purports to protect the homeland.

?
 
I fly that much too. I am not surprised at all about Obama and Naploitano's choices. We asked for change and we got it!

In my opinion, just tell Muslims to take the train if they don't like it. Safety is and always should be first.
 
The full body scan machines and pat downs are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, not to mention a health hazard as they involve X-rays. Just think about it: you go to the dentist and get a tooth X-ray and they put a big lead vest over your chest area. I am ashamed that we are going this far for a little security. The terrorists have won because we are all afraid and paranoid.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.
 
Originally posted by shu09:
The full body scan machines and pat downs are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, not to mention a health hazard as they involve X-rays. Just think about it: you go to the dentist and get a tooth X-ray and they put a big lead vest over your chest area. I am ashamed that we are going this far for a little security. The terrorists have won because we are all afraid and paranoid.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.
I agree with this although my wife says she'd rather be felt up than blown up.
 
Touche. Although your chances of being killed in terrorist act are very, very little.
 
09 do you fly a lot? If you did you might feel a little differently. The x-ray part is what I worry about the most - not someone seeing my large instrument. LOL

I love to hear Americans talk about this stuff and complain that their rights are being violated. We are such a bunch of pussy's it's not even funny.
 
Unfortunately, being felt up does not guarantee safety, as at least one attempt at assassination was made by a guy with explosives up his rear end. Is that the next check point, Janet? I am sadly amused by the ACLU's involvement in some of this fiasco, as they played such a role in eliminating profiling. Fair is foul and foul is fair.
 
I fly way too much (OnePass Platinum), and having a weekly experience with air travel, I have as you would imagine a pretty passionate view about all this.

First of all, I have no tolerance for this nonsense about this Fourth Amendment violation BS. If you don't want to submit to either, don't fly. My issue isn't about violating my rights, but rather that my experience is that our passenger security measures are completely worthless and misplaced. As a frequent travel I have absolutely NO confidence that any of these passenger security measures have any downstream effect. There are so many cracks in our air transportation system, this is not the one terrorists will exploit (see bomb packages shipped as parcels two weeks ago). On September 10, 2001 I was flying out of Newark with my wife and as we went through the security area, I remember telling her at the time that if I was a terrorist, I wouldn't be intimidated at all by this. Last week I was returning home and going through the security checkpoint at Newark and while I was walking out, four construction workers were walking past with buckets and pails in the opposite direction. Outside of checking their temporary ID's the guard didn't put them through any screen or even search their equipment.

So we inconvenience EVERY passenger and spend billions of dollars on a system that has virtually no effect on our ability to stop terrorists. Should there still be passenger security measures?? Absolutely, but we need to manage by exception (and I know this will be perceived as "profiling") but I'm more concerned about the results in terms of safety and cost.

Ironically, there is a plethora of information that exists today that we can use to assess risk and behaviors of a passenger. Think about all of the credit, healthcare and other habitual information that can be used to assess the liklihood that you or I would be a terrorist. My recommendation would be to create a master data base that aggregates this currently available data and create a criteria threshold for passengers that are deemed as a "non-threat" They would then be issued a card annually that allows them to move through an E-Z Pass type security. Anyone without the card would have to go through a highly scrutinized screening process. For instance, if you take my wife (insert joke), you would find a 53-year old woman; US Citizen since birth, who owns or co-owns a number of assets, i.e. a home; no criminal record, children, credit history, etc. In addition, she purchases only round-trip tickets by credit, etc. She gets the card....low/no risk. 95% of passengers today would meet a low/no risk criteria. The other 5% unfortunately have to be inconvenienced. This type of "profiling" happens everyday in business...research companies have complex algorythims that analyze this data and create incredibly accurate behavioral criteria. It's just applying proven technology to a different problem.

Then just think, you can take the billions that you save through this streamlining and invest in more pro-active security measures and systems to fix some of the other problems. It might even improve the financial performance of the airlines....

I could go on and on regarding this subject. Do you realize that the "Do Not Fly List" is produced by TSA on green-bar paper and fax'd to airports each morning? Doesn't that make you feel safe as you're being scanned by a $1 million dollar piece of equipment???? On a personal level, I've blocked this all out. My view is that none of these systems work, so my survival is based on purely hoping to survive a random terrorist event. On our worst day of aviation four planes were taken down out of about 10,000 scheduled flights...even by those numbes it's still safer than driving on Rt. 80.
This post was edited on 11/19 11:41 AM by HALL85
 
May I remind some of you that the "Underwear Bomber" was on a no-fly list and his own father had warned authorities about him. Tomorrow my wife flies to Istanbul. Tell me about high anxiety. Finally, and I don't to take a cheapshot, but look at who is wearing a TSA uniform and tell me you are comfortable.
 
Well, well put, Hall85. You just described Israel's security system. If anyone would be attacked by terrorists, it's them. Yet they have a spotless record.

Bring on the management by exception.
 
Originally posted by Section112:
09 do you fly a lot? If you did you might feel a little differently. The x-ray part is what I worry about the most - not someone seeing my large instrument. LOL

I love to hear Americans talk about this stuff and complain that their rights are being violated. We are such a bunch of pussy's it's not even funny.
The x-ray exposure is another fallacy...the press once again is over-blowing the situation as well. Only 600 complaints out of 38 million air travelers last month; majority of Americans (80%) are in favor of the measures, but it's the minority and ACLU that has the loudest voice (and I agree with you - they are the "pussy" element) and the media provides undue attention. Those same people are the first to blame and sue the government when a plane gets taken down. Kind of like some of the fair weather fans we have on the basketball board.
 
Originally posted by Bobbie Solo:
Belluno with the thinly veiled racism all over this thread. classy.


OK, Whoopi-Joy, back to the basketball threads where you have half a chance of being right. Tell us, Solo, would you feel comfortable boarding a plane on which hijab wearing women had been exempted from a search?
This post was edited on 11/20 12:51 PM by Belluno
 
Originally posted by Bobbie Solo:
Belluno with the thinly veiled racism all over this thread. classy.
Racism or description of the suspect?
 
Originally posted by shu09:
The full body scan machines and pat downs are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, not to mention a health hazard as they involve X-rays. Just think about it: you go to the dentist and get a tooth X-ray and they put a big lead vest over your chest area. I am ashamed that we are going this far for a little security. The terrorists have won because we are all afraid and paranoid.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.

Sorry I don't buy this argument. I do not want to get blown up while flying in a airplane. Any security measures necessary are fine by me. There is no basic right to air travel. If one does not like the security measures take a train, drive or walk. The terrorists are not going to stop trying to kill us & the sooner we all realize this the better.

Tom K
 
You're not going to get blown up in an airplane! You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning or the plane crashing on its own.

Nothing in life is without risk, getting on a plane included. If a terrorist does manage to bring a plane down, that means they got by this security and there will be even more security after that, more freedoms and liberties taken away. It's a never ending cycle at the current pace and it needs to stop. We just have to assume the risk and deal with it like we do with everything else.

You say take the train, drive or walk. Terrorists have a much better chance of attacking a train or a tunnel than a plane. That IS due to security. I'm not saying we should have no security, I'm saying we have crossed a line where people's liberties and privacy are now being violated.
 
As stated in my original post, airline security is a very real concern for me. I'm all for reasonable, sensible measurements that hold promise for identifying the threat, but in the past nine years I'd wager I've lost 6 corkscrews going through security here and abroad. This airport allows me to board with it, the next one seizes it. In Istanbul two scanners must entered and then every handbag checked before boarding. Other airports are far more lax. All this while millions of illegals have crossed our borders carrying God knows what and no administration appears concerned for fear of hurting feelings while clowns cry "racism". That's the biggest joke of all.
 
SnakeTom and shu09 both used the term "terrorist" without really specifying who the terrorists really are. They are radical fundamentalist Muslims.

No one can ever be 100% safe but the sooner we profile, the sooner we are all safer.
 
Originally posted by SPK145:
SnakeTom and shu09 both used the term "terrorist" without really specifying who the terrorists really are. They are radical fundamentalist Muslims.

No one can ever be 100% safe but the sooner we profile, the sooner we are all safer.
SPK has it right.
 
Timothy McVeigh??? All terrorists are not muslims. Most are, but you can't say all are.
This post was edited on 11/25 8:29 PM by shu09
 
Originally posted by shu09:
Timothy McVeigh??? All terrorists are not muslims. Most are, but you can't say all are.
This post was edited on 11/25 8:29 PM by shu09
We are talking airline security here, McVeigh has no place in this conversation.
 
It is naive (but not on SPKs' part). Look at the Muslim kid who tried to blow up a Christmas tree lighting in Oregon yesterday. How many more examples do you want before a generalization becomes true? I'm Irish and I can tell you lots of folks in my family like to drink. Is that a horrible generalization? Nope it's simply true. I have a friend who works in an anti-terrorism task force. He says just in just northern NJ alone, they are monitoring hundreds of folks that are very bad and want to kill us - all Muslim. Naive is when you are too stupid to realize what is happening around you and cannot admit that which is occuring. Call me racist and that is OK - but it's simply a fact of life today.
 
Terrorist groups are actively recruiting American-looking (white) people to carry out their attacks.

I don't think profiling is a bad thing in this case, but the groups will just adjust to that reality over time. They already are.
 
There is no reason that I have to say that many of those who want to harm us thru terrorist tactics are Muslim. That's common knowledge & no need to constantly repeat it. Are all Muslims terrorists - NO. Are there non Muslim Terrorists - Yes. But of course we have to be vigilent against those who have openly threatened us, our safety & our way of life. Profiling ??? Of couse it's a necessary part of our anti terrorist defense. No argument there at all. But it should not be our only defense.

TK
 
Originally posted by SnakeTom:
Profiling ??? Of couse it's a necessary part of our anti terrorist defense. No argument there at all. But it should not be our only defense.

TK
Absolutely but we are NOT doing it. Who do the powers that be really care about?
 
Originally posted by shu09:
I think that's a very naive generalization.

If I didn't listen to this kind of privileged, entitled,, boy-in-a-bubble kind of thinking from a 20-something every day, I'd be shocked.

Did you know anyone who died on 9/11? I knew 4 of the dead, one was my SHU classmate.

The biggest threat to our security, by far, is political correctness, and the failure to expedite and fine tune the screening process by allowing profiling. I don't care if you know that radicals are recruiting non-Middle Eastern types to carry this out, how many of them have attempted to blow up an airplane? None.

The same political correctness has thwarted our effectiveness in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing men who put their lives in harms' way in front of court martials for punching enemy combatants? The ACLU is cultural poison. The same people who handcuff our national security, both here and abroad, with the foolishness of political correctness, are the same ones who want an expeditious ending to our involvment in Iraq and Afghanistan, the same who would sue everyone from the Director of Homeland Security on down if their loved ones were victims of a terrorist attack.
 
Originally posted by donnie_baseball:

Originally posted by shu09:
I think that's a very naive generalization.

I don't care if you know that radicals are recruiting non-Middle Eastern types to carry this out, how many of them have attempted to blow up an airplane? None.

Nobody used an airplane as a missile prior to 9/11, either. This type of thinking is what's wrong with America, a reactive society. Just because they haven't done it yet doesn't mean they won't.

I am for profiling when it comes to this because the vast majority are muslim. But to say all terrorists are muslim is just flat out incorrect. That's my point.
 
Originally posted by shu09:

Originally posted by donnie_baseball:


Originally posted by shu09:
I think that's a very naive generalization.

I don't care if you know that radicals are recruiting non-Middle Eastern types to carry this out, how many of them have attempted to blow up an airplane? None.

Nobody used an airplane as a missile prior to 9/11, either. This type of thinking is what's wrong with America, a reactive society. Just because they haven't done it yet doesn't mean they won't.

I am for profiling when it comes to this because the vast majority are muslim. But to say all terrorists are muslim is just flat out incorrect. That's my point.

The terrorists committing, or attempting, airline disasters are most certainly are Muslim. Outside of that, thank you for clarifying.
 
Excuse me but there was no reason to go into Iraq in the first place.

Tom K
 
Originally posted by donnie_baseball:
Originally posted by shu09:
I think that's a very naive generalization.

If I didn't listen to this kind of privileged, entitled,, boy-in-a-bubble kind of thinking from a 20-something every day, I'd be shocked.

Did you know anyone who died on 9/11? I knew 4 of the dead, one was my SHU classmate.

The biggest threat to our security, by far, is political correctness, and the failure to expedite and fine tune the screening process by allowing profiling. I don't care if you know that radicals are recruiting non-Middle Eastern types to carry this out, how many of them have attempted to blow up an airplane? None.

The same political correctness has thwarted our effectiveness in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing men who put their lives in harms' way in front of court martials for punching enemy combatants? The ACLU is cultural poison. The same people who handcuff our national security, both here and abroad, with the foolishness of political correctness, are the same ones who want an expeditious ending to our involvment in Iraq and Afghanistan, the same who would sue everyone from the Director of Homeland Security on down if their loved ones were victims of a terrorist attack.
BTW, this got my vote for Post of the Day.
 
Thank you, good sir. The reason why shu09 drives me nuts; I'm certain he's a good guy, he just needs some guidance. LOL. You and I should volunteer for MMM (Men Mentoring Men).
 
Another absurdity of our rididculous security measures. A pilot that has nail clippers will have them confiscated when going through security, however when he or she sets foot in the cockpit, directly behind them on the wall is a full size axe!!!

When we talk about profiling (as I mentioned above), it's not just about being a Muslim. There are multiple criteria you can use to determine potential risk that someone could be a terrorist and weed them out (to be screened more thoroughly) and at the same time eliminate no-risk passengers for a cursory screen.
 
I am on a plane as I write this. In Ft Myers this morning, I had my bag searched because I was carrying a garlic press. Hilarious, though I certainly agree better safe than sorry. Again I say that if our borders aren't secure, then we are not secure. Sadly, the powers that be in Washington seem to be oblivious to that terrible situation, and they have been through several administrations. Airport security, while very important, cannot hold a candle to the seriousness of what might be coming in over our borders.
 
Originally posted by Belluno:
this morning I had my bag searched because I was carrying a garlic press.
Recently I was flying home from Wisconsin. The scanners picked up a rectangular object in my carry on. The search revealed the contraband to be a loaf of Cheddar Cheese. A waste of time maybe, but I'm glad they checked.

TK
 
Originally posted by SnakeTom:

Originally posted by Belluno:
this morning I had my bag searched because I was carrying a garlic press.
Recently I was flying home from Wisconsin. The scanners picked up a rectangular object in my carry on. The search revealed the contraband to be a loaf of Cheddar Cheese. A waste of time maybe, but I'm glad they checked.

TK
The sad fact is that neither of you should have had your bags checked in the first place.
 
“All of these bills remove any claim that TSA agents are immune to any state statutes that they violate when searching passengers or crew,” Doherty concluded. “If we don’t take strong action against these violations, where will it lead? Today planes, tomorrow trains and buses, what then? Will the drive to the market be viewed as a ‘privilege,’ the walk to church? Will we stand upon the slippery slope of paranoia that leads to invasive searches becoming a way of daily life, or say ‘No’ and defend our rights to privacy now while we still have them.”

NJ Legislation Bans TSA Scanners and Criminalizes
 
Just once I would like to see these gutless politicians introduce legislation that is meaningful. How about a bill that proposes targeting profiling based on the predictable behavioral and background factors??? They don't have the balls to do whats right.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT