It's great you want to give up your "rights", however, I am not willing to give up mine.

Perhaps a little less cowardice is the answer.

Choosing security over liberty is a false choice. Almost as false as your assumption that terrorism is only caused by one certain group. Remind us the color/ethnicity of the guy that just ran his plane into the IRS building? How about Tim McVeigh? The Uni-bomber? How about that militant religious group from Michigan they just busted? What color or religion were they?

Terrorism only works if you allow yourself to be scared. Quit being a baby.

And what does this have to do with Major Airlines? Moved to the appropriate forum, where you're welcome to read at your leisure.

You're absolutely right that it's not always one race/color/religion. I'm not advocating racism nor blanket harassment of one group of people. I AM advocating us not being so damn apologetic everytime someone gets their panties ruffled. If a middle-eastern man looks a little funny, pull him out of line and give him the once over. If Timmy McVeigh comes through the line (posthumously of course ) and is looking a little shady, do the same. I submit that Tim is more likely to be pulled over than Muhammed, simply because the TSA doesn't want to get spanked with a profiling case. We have all seen them specifically not take a second look at someone fitting the "profile" while attempting to earnestly inspect an obvious non-threat - all to maintain the appearance of political correctness. GMAFB! Once you enter a sterile area at an airport you should have surrendered a few basic rights.

As for the coward comment and you're liberty vs. security argument. Why not just open up the airports and not screen anyone at all? We're all so callous and unaffected by terrorist attacks that I can't wait to show how tough we are. We certainly bounced back from 9/11 right away.

It's not about being a coward. It's about recognizing a very real threat and dealing with it. How would you feel if your family happens to be on the next airplane that they take, tough guy? Scared yet? One version of cowardice is pulling your head under the covers and hoping the boogey man won't come get you. Lalalalala, this isn't happening . Grownups deal with reality. Who's being the baby here?

You keep paying for these dirtbags' lawyers. I'd rather spend my money on something else.

FWIW, I think we're having 2 different arguments here that are getting lost in translation. I am all for keeping the man out of our lives as much as possible. I just don't believe that means we should be so soft and sensitive as to be scared to offend anyone, friend or foe.

Here's hoping this is all a hypothetical discussion and neither one of us ever gets proved wrong.

Just to point out a fairly important distinction, accurate and professional profiling is not about race, sex, age or any other trite category some have mentioned. It is about a highly specific method of singling out certain categories of behavior. One way cash ticket? No luggage on a lengthy flight? Nothing in the data base about this individual?
It is being used now in many areas, it will be used more over time. It has a lot to do with a very expansive data base, and that data base is growing exponetially. The algorithms used can be modified rapidly. It is transparent to the passenger.

You might want to ask yourself why biometric IDs aren't being used. The systems are accurate, cheap and highly effective. It would save a lot of workload and eliminate a lot of labor in the wrong place(maybe that has something to do with it).

This is a great point. One of the best ideas I've heard in the last few years is "reverse profiling." Essentially taking known non-threats (ie crewmembers, frequent vetted travelers, military, etc) from the pool of people to be screened. This would free TSA up to go after the remaining pool without wasting their time on the majority that does not pose a threat.

The obvious challenge would be to make the vetting and verification process error free. Something similar to a crewpass or cass system is a good start. I wonder if this has been seriously considered by the high ups.

[quote=LeineLodge;811298]Essentially taking known non-threats (ie crewmembers, frequent vetted travelers, military, etc) [quote]

Military are known non-threats?

Nidal Malik Hasan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[quote=beavf16;811422][quote=LeineLodge;811298]Essentially taking known non-threats (ie crewmembers, frequent vetted travelers, military, etc)
Gotta be able to trust somebody.

See my previous post about the vetting and verification process. I'll wager that some warning signs were missed with Hasan. As I stated above, the challenge is in implementing such a program.

There have been cases of airline pilots murdering their wives, being guilty of domestic violence, etc but we're all still getting on airplanes. In any population you will have a few outliers, as was Hasan. As someone mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as 100% security. You can, however, adopt procedures that will recognize these outliers before they are able to cause a problem. I still believe that a key factor (whether we're willing to admit it or not) in the Ft. Hood masacre was that no one wanted to point a finger at a Muslim for fear of being called a profiler, racist, xenophobe, or whatever your favorite label is. This despite the fact that there were some signs that he was unstable. This has to change, and is the crux of what I'm getting at here - and what most who have replied to this thread don't seem to agree with.

Maybe I'm wrong. Part of what makes this country great is that we are tolerant and accepting of other cultures, religions, languages, etc. All I'm saying is that just because we are accepting of everyone doesn't mean we have to be so concerned about "appearing" not to be. Political correctness has run amok. We, as a country, need to get some thicker skin.

I still think some version of "reverse profiling" would be a good idea. Crewpass, LEO security bypass, and SIDA bypass have all been in place for some time. Expanding these programs to include more non-threats (and at all airports, not just your domicile airport in the case of SIDA) would significantly decrease the TSA workload and allow them to focus on the rest of the traveling public.

And to get back to your post again. Yes, despite your example, I STILL believe military are non-threats. If they're trustworthy enough to fight and die for you and I, then I feel just fine about putting them on the "good guy" list.

[quote=beavf16;811422][quote=LeineLodge;811298]Essentially taking known non-threats (ie crewmembers, frequent vetted travelers, military, etc) Since you are in the military, you know that you shouldn't try to work in absolutes. I'd say that the military is a pretty safe bet on being trustworthy. You disagree?
If I were able to provide you with the name of a *dirty* cop - would you called them all dirty or do you - in most examples - trust them to do their jobs?

USMCFLYR

[QUOTE=beavf16;811422][quote=LeineLodge;811298]Essentially taking known non-threats (ie crewmembers, frequent vetted travelers, military, etc) Further proof that PC kills, as if we needed it.

Now, please explain why we search aircrew. They are in control of the aircraft and complete privacy is just a bolt throw away. It makes absolutely no sense unless you twist logic well beyond it's limits.

[quote=jungle;811657][quote=beavf16;811422]Maybe someone read a Tom Clancy book in the past

USMCFLYR