To Groin or not to Groin?

You want to fly this Thanksgiving to get grandma's turkey?  Well, if you do, you better be ready to get some of your stuffing checked by a groping TSA official.

Alas, we have reached the point in U.S. history where it is legal for another person of the same-sex to touch you in an area where only you or your spouse have exclusive rights. This open nothing off-limits touching policy only applies if you opt out of or refuse to have an x-ray picture taken of your naked body as if that is even a viable alternative.

Do we deserve to be subjected to such a sexual assault in the name of national security? The answer to that question depends on who you ask. Some will say absolutely not. Others have said if "I have to be touched in a private area in order to fly safely, then I am all for it."

To Groin or Not to Groin is finally upon us.

I fall in a gray area. While I am not at all enamored with the idea of a minimum wage TSA employee putting his hands on a No Touching Zone, I also understand that in an age of  terrorism we have to loose some of our rights to ensure our safety. However, I would only accept such a blatant and gross  infringement of privacy if it actually protected us from terrorism.

In this case, the x-ray images and invasive pat downs which we are now accustomed to in U.S. airports are not protecting us from terrorism or airplane hijackings at all. In fact, they are being implemented in such a way that terrorists could easily walk right through security without being targeted for pat downs or even x-ray images.

As far as I am aware, you only need to choose between an x-ray image of your naked body or a rather intrusive touch-up of your intimate areas if you are specifically asked to be targeted for the body scanner. Otherwise, you walk through the security checkpoint like its always been done before.

This is not proper or efficient security.  Moreover, it will not protect us from another attack as people are randomly being subjected to the intrusive treatment whether they resemble terrorists or not. Children as young as three have been patted down in an intrusive manner as has 80 something year old grandmothers in walkers. Whereas, Middle Eastern women with Burkas or Middle Eastern men with one-way tickets to a far away island somewhere routinely stroll by security with little fanfare even though they are more likely to fit the profile of a suspected terrorist.

It is because the body scanners and the pat downs are useless in the fight against terrorism that I am adamantly opposed to them.  No one should be subjected to having their groin examined let alone by a High School dropout TSA official. However, if  we have no choice but to subject ourselves to such a treatment, then let it be worth something. Unfortunately, our children and elderly among the rest of  ourselves are forced to be publicly humiliated in the name of government incompetence rather than national security simply because we have opted to cash in on our freedom to fly.

At the end of the day, pat downs and naked body scanners should only be permitted if there is a reasonable suspicion that the traveler is a threat to national security. If there is no viable threat, the  citizenry 's privacy should be the government's paramount interest.

The problem is of course TSA officials are not competent enough to decipher whether a Middle Eastern looking man from Saudi Arabia is more of a threat to national security than a three year old American boy from Kansas.

If you really want this invasive policy to change, I suggest that you contact President Obama at the White House and demand that he preserve the privacy of the American people since he is the one who authorized the TSA to carry out these pat downs in the first place.

To Groin or not to Groin?

Air Canada Security Breach

Air Canada Security Breach

Back off of Arizona

Ever since the Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer signed the state's Immigration Bill into law, Arizona has been under attack.

Neighboring states and cities have called for an outright boycott of Arizona.The Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution 13-1 which will prevent the city from doing any business with Arizona. There even was   pressure on the LA Lakers to refuse to play the Phoenix Suns in the NBA playoff series. 

San Francisco is also considering boycotting Arizona and signing a similar resolution as the Los Angeles City Council. In fact, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger  weighed in against Arizona's Immigration law when he quipped at a commencement ceremony "I was also going to give a graduation speech in Arizona this weekend. But with my accent, I was afraid they would try to deport me."

Other cities, including Milwaukee, Austin, West Hollywood, Boston, Oakland, St. Paul, Washington, D.C., Boulder, and New York City are currently deciding whether to follow Los Angeles's lead and boycott Arizona as well. Bob Menendez, a Senator from New Jersey, is even calling on Major League Baseball to remove the 2011 All star game from Phoenix where it is now scheduled to take place.

Incredulously, Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archdiocese and Los Angeles city councilman Paul Koretz compared the Arizona law to the Nazi oppression during the Holocaust. Jewish groups are on record fiercely contesting such a comparison.

The  criticism leveled against Arizona is unwarranted.

Jan Brewer, like all Governors,  has a responsibility to protect her citizens from harmful actions by other individuals which is why she signed into law a Bill which is designed to address a growing problem of crime in Arizona committed by illegal aliens. In explaining her reasoning for signing the Bill, Brewer told Fox News "we've been inundated with criminal activity. It's just -- it's been outrageous."

According to the U.S. Department of Justice's National Drug Threat Assessment, there were 267 kidnappings committed by illegal aliens in Arizona in 2009 and 299 in 2008.  These are astounding numbers which do not take into account the number of murders and burglaries that are also committed by illegal aliens.

The boycott of Arizona could cost the city of Phoenix an estimated 90 million dollars in lost revenue over the next five years.

Los Angeles and other cities who are boycotting Arizona are overstepping their boundaries by penalizing a neighboring state for taking action to address a serious issue affecting its citizens.

Furthermore, American drivers of all national origins are already required to present their driver's license to a police officer making a traffic stop. Why should  an individual that is stopped legitimately by a police officer be exempt from showing documentation of  legal status like a driver's license or green card as all Americans are required to do so when summoned by a police officer?

This law does not sanction racial profiling nor does it encourage police officers to harass individuals because of their Hispanic heritage. Police officers are only permitted to ask individuals for their papers once they are already suspected of committing a crime non related to their suspected status of being an illegal alien. Only then can they be deported if 'reasonable suspicion' exists. The law was simply created for the nonracial purpose of eradicating a growing problem of crime committed by illegal aliens.

If the LAPD and the San Francisco Police Department  want to send their kidnapping units over to Arizona to help the Phoenix police crack down  on crime commited by illegal aliens, I am sure that Governor Brewer would support repealing the Immigration Bill.

Until then, everyone should back off of Arizona.

Back off of Arizona

TSA Theater of the Absurd

Did you hear about the latest  innocent American traveler thought to be a "terrorist" by airport security?

In a previous post, I told you the story of how  TSA took a child's play dough from him in New Orleans. Well, they're at it again. This time TSA targeted a developmentally disabled child  believed to be a terrorist in Philadelphia. 

A four year old developmentally disabled boy who walks with leg braces and who only learned how to walk recently, was traveling with his father and mother from Philadelphia to Orlando, Florida. When they were going through the security machines, TSA told the parents that the child had to remove his braces. The father informed TSA that his son could not walk without the leg braces.  That did not allay TSA concerns as they continued to demand that the boy take the leg braces off. The boy's mother offered to walk him through the detectors once they took the leg braces off. Well, that was not good enough either. They said the boy had to walk through the detectors himself without any assistance.

Thankfully, the boy was able to walk without getting hurt or falling. He certainly could have fallen and injured himself only because the TSA required that the disabled boy take off his leg braces.

TSA eventually apologized for the way that this boy and his family were treated.

But, guess what TSA said they should have done instead.  Ann Davis, Spokeswoman for the TSA, said you guessed it that the boy should have been  taken to a private room and swabbed for traces of explosive materials.

Apparently, as ridiculous as it seems, young American children, particularly four year old disabled children with leg braces, are thought by TSA to be terrorists connected to Al Qaeda who have to undergo strict scrutiny to see if they are carrying any explosive devices.

In all of my years of schooling, I would never have predicted that a four year old developmentally disabled child from Camden, New Jersey could have the ability to blow up a plane or terrorize other passengers.

You learn something every day.

TSA Theater of the Absurd

Body Scanners are Useless

Ever since there was word that airport security could begin using body scanners to detect explosives following the foiled Christmas day airplane bombing, I have written at least two posts arguing that body scanners will not in of itself be effective in preventing another attack simply because the terrorists will always find other creative measures to carry out their attacks. (See James Inhofe and NWA attack posts) What is needed is racial profiling as the main security measure.

Well, I think the terrorists have found more creative means to carry out their attacks and creative it is indeed.

Great Britain is reporting that their intelligence agencies have uncovered a plot by the terrorists to surgically implant the explosive PETN into their bodies.

Men would implant PETN into their appendix or buttocks and women would insert PETN into their breasts similar to implants.

How will they accomplish these surgical implants?  Experts explain that the terrorists will place the PETN into a plastic sachet and insert it into their body. Then they will close up the wound and over time the wound will heal as it does in any surgery.  Then, when the terrorists are ready to detonate the bomb, they will have a syringe filled with an explosive called TATP which they will inject into their skin triggering the sachet containing the PETN.

PETN can easily blow a large hole into an airplane.

Body scanners will be completely ineffective in detecting terrorists who have PETN sowed into their buttocks or breasts.

Racial profiling done by qualified security professionals will save the day.

Body Scanners are Useless

Senator James Inhofe Under Fire

The radical Muslim group, CAIR, is calling on Senator Inhofe(R-OK) to explain why he is in favor of racial or ethnic profiling as a security measure when screening passengers at the airport. Inhofe proclaimed his support for racial profiling at a Senate hearing on Thursday investigating the Fort Hood shootings.



CAIR Executive Director Razi Hashmi, stated  in response to Inhofe's comments "It is disturbing to hear a member of the United States Senate suggest that entire religious and ethnic groups should automatically be considered terror suspects."

CAIR is an illegitimate organization which has been identified by the Justice Department as a terrorist conspirator. They should have absolutely no say in determining security procedures at army bases, U.S. airports, or anywhere else for that matter.

Nevertheless, the issue of racial profiling is a legitimate conversation. Ideally, we should not have to implement racial profiling. However, we are living in very dangerous times. Constitutionally, the U.S. government can take drastic measures if it has a compelling governmental interest which seems to exist by all objective accounts. Unless we racially profile, the current security procedures will be ineffective in stopping future terrorist attacks which will undoubtedly occur. If airport security had screened the Christmas Day underwear bomber as he is now called, he would not have made it on that Northwest Airlines flight. And, if airport security had racially profiled on Thursday, they would not have been concerned by the man who wore phylacteries when praying on his US Air flight.

The fact is that primarily all of the terrorists who implement attacks on flights are of Middle Eastern descent. As Inhofe stated, "you hear that not all Middle Easterners or Muslims between the age of 20 and 35 are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims or Middle Easterners between the age of 20 and 35, that's by and large true." 

No one can escape those statistics.

On the other hand, proper racial profiling would not automatically assume that every Muslim flying is a terrorist. Certainly, most Muslims who fly in the U.S. do not have ties to Al Qaeda.

With proper racial profiling, every person flying whether they are Muslim or not  would be scrutinized prior to checking in bags at the ticket counter and perhaps prior to boarding. However, people who are of Middle Eastern descent (mostly men within the age bracket) have to  be subjected to more extensive questioning because of the current trend to determine if they are a threat. Once the trained security guard determines that they are not a threat, they would be able to board with unfettered access. If they fit the characteristic of a terrorist (i.e. boarding an international flight with no bags after paying for the flight with cash), they would not be allowed to board the flight.

Its not rocket science and  its the only way to prevent terrorist attacks.

Safety must supersede all other constitutional interests.

Body scanners will not stop terrorist attacks on flights all together as the terrorists will always find other creative measures to carry out their attacks.

However, if we are on guard for suspicious behavior through the use of racial profiling, we have a much better chance of preventing another 9/11 or an event of similar proportions.

We fail to accept the use of racial profiling to our own detriment.

Senator James Inhofe Under Fire

Does this look like a bomb threat?

Apparently, passengers on a U.S. Air flight thought so. A man wearing phylacteries was construed by fellow passengers to be a bomb threat. The plane was quarantined for period of time and law enforcement quickly determined that the man was not a threat to the flight.

Does this look like a bomb threat?