So We Want to Commit Suicide? [Free Speech entry]

This is going around. Please tell me they got it wrong.

From the article:

"Muslim women will likely opt for the not-very-invasive security pat-down, because most consider airports’ high-image body scans a violation of Islamic Shari’a law. CNS News adds, “In February, the Figh Council of North America, a group of Islamic scholars, issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law.”

So, Muslim women will not be subject to a full body scan or a pat-down on much of their elaborately concealed bodies. Feeling secure yet?"

http://floydreports.com/obama-gives-a-pass-tsa-wont-touch-muslims-junk/?

I counter that with this article: Religion Offers No Break on Airport Screening, TSA Says -- Associated Press via Fox News Nov 16, 2010

I counter it by saying that full body scans and security theatre pretty much remove some of the liberties that I thought America stood for...

Quote: thecesspit

I counter it by saying that full body scans and security theatre pretty much remove some of the liberties that I thought America stood for...

It's the ol' safety vs. security issue all over again. Obviously, we could cut off 99.99% of terrorist activity off at the pass by simply forbidding Muslims and/or anyone from the Nutjob Nations to use public transportation at all. Are we prepared to do that? Not until the next mass murder of Americans.

In a larger sense, an increased chance of dying from the activities of some evil gang of religious fanatics is the cost we pay every day for NOT clamping down security-wise; from a societal standpoint, we've consciously or unconsciously made that tradeoff. Our current level of security is ludicrous, given the magnitude and frequency of the threats against us, but we don't want to turn into communist China. Yet.

I think the OP is trying to say that the alleged exception for Muslim women is unfair and unsafe. I would agree with that, if it were true, which the article I quoted says is not the case. A discussion of the pros and cons of the scanners in general I think should be put in a separate thread. If someone does that, it would make for a good poll.

Quote: Associated Press

The Transportation Security Administration says airline passengers won't get out of body imaging screening or pat-downs based on their religious beliefs.

I think that allowing any group of anyone free pass to avoid a security measure subverts the security measure itself, and makes the whole thing pointless. I don't agree with the full body scanners, but even if I did, the entire point of them is defeated if we just give terrorists an avenue to circumvent it anyway.

Why have it at all, then?

Quote: Wizard

I think the OP is trying to say that the alleged exception for Muslim women is unfair and unsafe. I would agree with that, if it were true, which the article I quoted says is not the case. A discussion of the pros and cons of the scanners in general I think should be put in a separate thread. If someone does that, it would make for a good poll.

What I find interesting is the believability factor. It is why some stories seem to carry and some do not. Here is how I break it down.


1. Do you believe a muslim group could or would sue airlines, airports, or the TSA for the enforcement of security rules or being subject to security they did not like for some reason? YES-in fact it has happened. A group of muslims intentionally behaved in a suspicious manner before borarding USAir Flight in Phoenix. Muslim groups also helped a muslim woman sue for the right to have her face covered in her drivers licens photo. So can a rational person belive a muslim group would sue to prevent "violation" of muslim groups? I think to be rational you would have to accept the idea it could happen.

2. Do you believe a judge could side with the muslim group that such a search would violate their religious freedom? Again, it has happened. Didn't a judge just stay the law stating that judges could not take sharia law into account? What other decisions have activist judges handed down?

3. Do you believe at the highest level the government would come down on the side of the muslim women/muslim group suing? We have a POTUS who would not even say a mosque near the former WTC Sight should be built elsewhere, so this is also believable.

If I worked at the WH I would consider coming out in front of this story and state that no exception is being made for muslim women. However, I do not expect this WH to thinkm it is an important issue.

There's no protected right to fly anyway.

Quote: ElectricDreams

I think that allowing any group of anyone free pass to avoid a security measure subverts the security measure itself, and makes the whole thing pointless. I don't agree with the full body scanners, but even if I did, the entire point of them is defeated if we just give terrorists an avenue to circumvent it anyway.

Why have it at all, then?

Exactly--and you KNOW that there are hundreds of attempts by Muslim terrorists, on almost a daily basis, to ascertain how the airport security measures might be circumvented. If we don't search people in wheelchairs, here come the wheelchair bombs. If we don't search women in long black Muslim dresses, here come the bombers wearing long black Muslim dresses. They are constantly probing, probing, probing for weaknesses, and we've been VERY lucky to avoid 9/11 Part II so far.

I wonder just what these goofballs are thinking killing a couple of hundred more Americans would accomplish. How would it help their cause(s)? Wouldn't it just ignite a firestorm of anti-Muslim hatred in the US? (Of course, these morons don't realize that the US is one of the most tolerant nations on earth toward diverse religions--even enemy ones--but that can change in a big hurry.)

I favor making it known to all the Nutjob Nations that in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil that causes the death of even one American, we will give a wing of F-16 fighters and a dozen nuclear weapons to Israel. Also, a cache of antipersonnel weapons and nerve gas. Those who chant "Death to America" need a little "Death FROM America", and Israel would be only too happy to pull the trigger.

Quote: ElectricDreams

I think that allowing any group of anyone free pass to avoid a security measure subverts the security measure itself, and makes the whole thing pointless. I don't agree with the full body scanners, but even if I did, the entire point of them is defeated if we just give terrorists an avenue to circumvent it anyway.

Why have it at all, then?

If we actually did some good police work and profiled for passengers that would be more likely to commit a terrorist act, go after people and behavior and not weapons maybe we would be safer.

And before anyone cries about "profiling" it is just good police work, and I myself have been profiled to no issue. I had to be told I was profiled after it was so harmless. Co-worker tells me, "Customs profiled you as you fit the profile of a smuggler." When I gave him a look he said, "Hey, so do I--white male, 20s/30s traveling internationally alone."

I believe in profiling. I don't believe in pat downs because I believe EVERY flyer including the flight crew and children of all ages, MUST go through the scanner. I also believe in everything mkl654321 believes in on this. Notice he's learning....

Quote: mkl654321I

1 wonder just what these goofballs are thinking killing a couple of hundred more Americans would accomplish. How would it help their cause(s)?

I'm imagine part of it (other than the attack part) is the economic cost and hassle protecting air travel. Didn't Osama think he might have a powerful economic effect attacking the Trade Center?

Quote: Wizard

I counter that with this article: Religion Offers No Break on Airport Screening, TSA Says -- Associated Press via Fox News Nov 16, 2010

The TSA guy is telling us all pat downs are equal, when maybe different people get different pat downs. That would seem to be what CAIR believes, or the Canada Free Press article is totally irresponsible, one or the other.

Quote: odiousgambit

The TSA guy is telling us all pat downs are equal, when maybe different people get different pat downs. That would seem to be what CAIR believes, or the Canada Free Press article is totally irresponsible, one or the other.

My opinion is that it is the latter.

Quote: rxwine (in his sig)

Mama Cass shouldn't have had a ham sandwich. Karen Carpenter should have eaten a ham sandwich. Roy Horn shouldn't of looked like a ham sandwich.

Note: This is very much an off-topic comment, not intended to derail this thread.

I just caught your sig; is it new? I recognize the humor, but are you aware that Cass Elliot didn't really die from choking on a ham sandwich? That rumor really upset her family, who pointed out that she was Jewish and practiced the dietary restrictions. I think she died of a coronary problem, perhaps related to her weight.

I suppose that these machines are being considered anti-Islamic because women object to their bodies being "exposed". Obviously the fear of a woman having her body exposed to strangers extends to some Christians, Bahai, agnostics and athiests.

Personally,(and I think most people would agree) that leering at fuzzy outlines of human bodies in the course of a work day is the furthest thing from the minds of these machine operators. However, I think that the transit authorities should respect the rights of the small numbers of people who worry about such things. The government has some obligation to have some procedures (special machines, women operators, etc.) that should not prove to onerous. However, once the procedures are clearly established then no one should be exempt on any grounds.

Oh yeah.

I'll probably have more that aren't true.

This is an interesting subject for a gambling thread.

This whole issue of racial profiling is ridiculous. The vast majority of suicide bombers are of middle eastern descent. I'll have to agree with Dennis Miller on this one. I'm sorry if you belong to a group that lends itself to profiling, but that's the way it is. EL AL profiles and screens their passengers based on their appearance, country of origin, as well as their background. Their safety record speaks for itself.

Profiling is a matter of Statistics. What good is a tool if you don't use it. Knowledge only has value through application.

Israel is no longer alone in being targeted for destruction by Radical Islam, we the citizens of the USA have now joined that elite club.

If you are not Muslim, you are an Infidel. These people (radical Islam) are trying to kill you. They want to eradicate all other forms of religion on this planet to reign supreme.

What part of this do you not understand?

How do you eradicate the world of Infidel's? Easy! One planeload at a time.

Quote: Wizard

My opinion is that it is the latter.

[that the article is making irresponsible claims]

Searching news today, quite a bit more on this can be found, but I concede the sources tend to be right wing. It is bothering me that the charges are not being rebutted though, and I think eventually this may come to a head.

I find the security program to be riddled with insecurity. I am not saying that the TSA is not trying to keep us safe; I just think that they could do much better.

A cop walks through without being searched. Another person walks through that clearly fits the profile of a potential Muslim Extremist. A third person who who is your typical "average" middle-aged American walks through security. The potential Muslim Extremist is not chosen for a complete search but the "average" guy is because there is no "profiling" allowed. The cop hands "something" to the potential Muslim Extremist and the "average American" hands him the ticket he has purchased. The cop and the "average" disappear, and the potential Muslim Extremist causes an "incident" on the plane...

If you have a secure area, everyone must be "secured"--letting anyone by without a search is a hole in the system. Your ID is checked at the security area but not when you board. The airlines really do not know who is flying. Let's say that a guy is two hours early, TSA misses him on the "no fly" list but they catch it before the plane takes off. Guess what...they don't REALLY know which plane that person is on...

We need profiling, constant changes in "what" is being done to keep terrorists off guard, bomb-sniffing dogs, behavioral questioning (like Israel does), etc. We don't need as much intrusion at the "security area" and we especially don't need a great target of opportunity presented to terrorists--we give them that when we all line up for security screening. They always could attack BEFORE the search...

We also can't be frightened of our shadow. We must be vigilant and continue to do what we do...changing too much "because of terrorists" is letting them win. While there may be no "right to fly", how far do we go down that slippery slope giving up Constitutional protections before we have no freedoms left? Driving isn't a "protected right" either but you do have the protection of the Constitution when you drive.