What's your stance on TSA security?

[Kregisen]

Obviously no one likes the new naked scanners at airports. Obviously as technology advances, so do threats and because of that security.

I guess my question is, what's your proposal? What do we do? What if a terrorist IS able to hide part of a bomb up their ass? (another thread on that)

What do you do? Is there a point where you just give up on security if terrorists can always get through? Or do you just keep getting bigger and bigger as far as searches and technology goes?


As much as I hate everything the TSA does, I don't see a viable alternative. If the goal is to stop terrorists from bringing explosives on board, then you have to do as much as you can to stop it from happening, which means advanced searches, which also means much less privacy.

[libertythor]

I say get rid of the TSA and put airlines back in charge of their own security.

[Vessol]

Why should the government enforce security at airports? If private companies want to have scanners and other security, that's their own choice.

[Kregisen]

So nobody is mad at the level of security, just who's the one doing it?

[Pauls' Revere]

Why should the government enforce security at airports? If private companies want to have scanners and other security, that's their own choice.

Yeah, one can choose to fly a secured airline versus an unsecured one. The latter with more privacy rights and quicker lines. I guess a matter of security as a competitive edge v/s disadvantage.

Then again we might try to understand why the hell they want to bomb us in the first place.

[bwlibertyman]

Yeah you guys make some good points. If our airline or country doesn't give people a reason to blow us up I don't think we should be having this conversation. I also think the tsa is a waste of a department. I do agree that air ports should have to provide their own security. We don't have tsa agents for buses or trains. Why should planes be any different? These are private companies. They can choose whether they want to provide security or not.

If there is a terrorist problem I do think that airlines would tighten security. I'm not sure how far they would go. Xray machines might be an option. Each company would probably have a different policy. We'd be able to choose which airline with which security we want. There is no need for the tsa.

[Vessol]

So nobody is mad at the level of security, just who's the one doing it?

That's not the point. If the government didn't enforce airport security I could avoid the company that does security procedures I disagree with.

[Agorism]

We need to defund the TSA.

Paul already addressed this during the Iowa campaign on how to prevent these terror hijackings from occurring. See 6:20 minute mark.


YouTube - Ron Paul Reagan and Goldwater Platform Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flJvKPM_Nf4)

[dannno]

Private security, allow pilots to arm themselves.

[Kregisen]

Private security, allow pilots to arm themselves.

I guess the bigger threat today isn't plane hijackings, it's bombs.

[Agorism]

We don't even need a military let alone a TSA.


Sully Sullenberger opposes body scanners (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/national_world&id=7785108)


"I think it's unnecessary for the flight crew to go through them first, and second, I think it poses some radiation risk," said Sullenberger.

You can opt out of the body scan by submitting to a full-body, full contact pat down. But some passengers think that's even "more" intrusive than the scanners.

[aravoth]

Obviously no one likes the new naked scanners at airports. Obviously as technology advances, so do threats and because of that security.

I guess my question is, what's your proposal? What do we do? What if a terrorist IS able to hide part of a bomb up their ass? (another thread on that)

What do you do? Is there a point where you just give up on security if terrorists can always get through? Or do you just keep getting bigger and bigger as far as searches and technology goes?


As much as I hate everything the TSA does, I don't see a viable alternative. If the goal is to stop terrorists from bringing explosives on board, then you have to do as much as you can to stop it from happening, which means advanced searches, which also means much less privacy.

Let me and he rest of the the people in the united states carry a weapon in an airplane and any terrorist sitting in the cab of any airplane would likely shit his pants at the sight of 70+ people packed in a plane, pissed off, armed and ready to defend their own lives.

Seriously, under those conditions, What would be the point in hijacking an airplane? You'd never succeed. One insane dude with a box cutter trying to light his shoes on fire, versus 70 people with colonel colt's equalizer?

[Agorism]

Let me and he rest of the the people in the united states carry a weapon in an airplane and any terrorist sitting in the cab of any airplane would likely shit his pants at the sight of 70+ people packed in a plane, pissed off, armed and ready to defend their own lives.

Seriously, under those conditions, What would be the point in hijacking an airplane? You'd never succeed. One insane dude with a box cutter trying to light his shoes on fire, versus 70 people with colonel colt's equalizer?


Exactly. A terrorist could be anywhere. A mall, a football stadium etc. No reason to worry about it. Chances are one in a billion.

No point worrying about it. Plus if the American people can't live with that kind of threat then they shouldn't vote for politicians who cause the blowback.

[TheHumblePhysicist]

I say we don't have any security except install a shitload of high def security cameras. These would let us figure out what nation is attacking us. If some nation is dumb enough to smuggle a bomb on board and detonate it, we blow away their country with nuclear weapons.

If it was not done by a nation, but a terrorist group, then we tell the country in which the terrorist group is hiding to deliver their heads on a silver platter, or else we will blow them away with nuclear weapons.

Some people might not consider this "libertarian". However I think if we used our nuclear advantage more, we could completely cut the army, most of the navy, and most of the airforce. Mutually assured destruction worked with Russia didn't it? I say we try it in the middle east too. (after we pull all of our troops out, destroy all of our bases, and pay the Iraqis reparations of course)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The beauty of the American system of limited constitutional government, or Republic, is that if the majority does not want freedom, you will bend over and enjoy a coerced cavity search. No need to bitch about it, just hand over your socially secured prisoner number to illustrate what a good little citizen you are. There is nothing to fear, government has everything under control, including you. And remember, it's not molestation when benevolent government does it.

[RonPaulCult]

I was at a major airport this evening, picking up a friend. As we were waiting outside of security, to my right I could see people being touched from head to toe. To my left I saw police officers going up to TSA, with a gun and flashing a badge. They were allowed in with a gun in full view without any further checks.

What is to stop a terrorist from faking a badge and doing that - or joining a police force and doing an attack? There are ENDLESS ways to kill people. Security can never do everything to stop terrorist. I don't agree with the OP. I know this may sound harsh but I would rather risk dying in the ONE plane that blows up and still be able to carry my liquids on my carrying on. They are pushing us around more and more each year and I'm sick of it. I'm just sick of it. At some point I will leave the country if this keeps up.

[Mike4Freedom]

I have one thing to say to this:

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

I have a hell of a lot more hate for my government that takes my freedoms away then a terrorist who is trying to fight for his in his own way.

[lynnf]

in retrospect, the basic premise of the creation of TSA is flawed and it only advances the police state. muzzle it and send it to the dog house.

lynn

[CzargwaR]

terrorists don't need a plane to be deadly. Whole TSA deal is a result of post 911 hysteria and needs to be taken down asap. It's growing just like every other government agency - pure fucking waste of money, I HATE IT !!! ARGGG

[Madly_Sane]

[Country Accent] "They be violatin' our rights!"

[RM918]

I say we don't have any security except install a shitload of high def security cameras. These would let us figure out what nation is attacking us. If some nation is dumb enough to smuggle a bomb on board and detonate it, we blow away their country with nuclear weapons.

If it was not done by a nation, but a terrorist group, then we tell the country in which the terrorist group is hiding to deliver their heads on a silver platter, or else we will blow them away with nuclear weapons.

Some people might not consider this "libertarian". However I think if we used our nuclear advantage more, we could completely cut the army, most of the navy, and most of the airforce. Mutually assured destruction worked with Russia didn't it? I say we try it in the middle east too. (after we pull all of our troops out, destroy all of our bases, and pay the Iraqis reparations of course)

Yes, let's go haphazardly nuking millions upon millions of innocent civilians just to show their leaders (who will be safely spirited away in the night and thus not affected whatsoever, except to use the situation to inspire MORE retaliation) what's what!

We've seen where indiscriminate killing has gotten us, aside from it being the disgusting evil that it is, and this would just assure our total destruction.

The answer is to dismantle our empire, and focus our defense on ACTUALLY defending the country. The crazies wanting to bomb us lose support because their motivation, us killing their families, is gone and with our resources properly allocated we're no longer stretched too thin to defend our own country.

[TruckinMike]

Let me and he rest of the the people in the united states carry a weapon in an airplane and any terrorist sitting in the cab of any airplane would likely shit his pants at the sight of 70+ people packed in a plane, pissed off, armed and ready to defend their own lives.

Seriously, under those conditions, What would be the point in hijacking an airplane? You'd never succeed. One insane dude with a box cutter trying to light his shoes on fire, versus 70 people with colonel colt's equalizer?

I tried this argument with my very successful ($$$), Republican brother-in-law. It didn't compute in his pre-programmed mind. I suppose that the majority of people faced with the option of self protection can't even fathom actually doing it, thus they impose the results of their (programmed) cowardice upon us ---- tyranny.

Thought eludes them.


"We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull." p.268 Orwell's "1984"

TMike

[james1906]

My stance on TSA security?

Bent over and naked.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Well - gosh! There is the "I just had an intimate experience with my drill instructor and his riding crop somehow got stuck in my ass....

Or the "WOW! - that was a great lap dance aka: underware bomber, unexplainable bulk in the genital area stance....

or... well, yeah - they go downhill from here....

-t

[pcosmar]

What's your stance on TSA security?

Oxymoron
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oxymoron

[ghengis86]

what's your stance on toilet bowl cameras?

what's your stance on child molesting?

[tangent4ronpaul]

what's your stance on toilet bowl cameras?

what's your stance on child molesting?

Gosh - that's a hard one... but considering that most internet traffic is porn, I am sure making finger mounted lipstick cams on lubed, TSA ruber gloves a PPV event - I am VERY confident that we could completely negate the deficit in no time!

:rolleyes:

-t

[Dreamofunity]

No poll? I vote assholes.