| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Obama says understands ire over airport screenings |
| 2010-11-21 |
[Washington Examiner] President Barack B.O.Obama has asked security officials whether there's a less intrusive way to screen U.S. airline passengers than the pat-downs and body scans causing a holiday-season uproar. For now, they've told him there isn't one, the president said Saturday in response to a question at the NATO summit in Lisbon. "I understand people's frustrations," Obama said, while acknowledging that he's never had to undergo the stepped-up screening methods. Passengers at some U.S. airports must pass through full-body scanners that produce a virtually naked image. If travelers refuse, they can be forced to undergo time-consuming fingertip examinations, including of clothed genital areas and breasts, by inspectors of the same sex as the passenger. Obama said he's told the U.S. Transportation Security Administration: "You have to constantly refine and measure whether what we're doing is the only way to assure the American people's safety. And you also have to think through, are there ways of doing it that are less intrusive." At this point, that agency and counterterrorism experts have told him that the current procedures are the only ones that they think can effectively guard against threats such as last year's attempted Christmas-day bombing. A Nigerian man is accused of trying to set off a bomb hidden in his underwear aboard a flight from Amsterdam with nearly 300 people aboard. Obama said that in weekly meetings with his counterterrorism team, "I'm constantly asking them whether is what we're doing absolutely necessary, have we thought it through, are there other ways of accomplishing it that meet the same objectives." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #18 I object to your insulting cats, Paul. What have felines ever done to you? Cats are God's perfect creatures - Bambi, not so much. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2010-11-21 15:01 |
| #17 Like a cat. He understands---he does not care---but he understands. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2010-11-21 14:56 |
| #16 "I'm constantly asking them..." He never rests! And the daughters are asking him "Did you plug that hole yet, daddy?" And so, cavity checks became the non-profiling law of the TSA. |
| Posted by: Muggsy Glink 2010-11-21 11:59 |
| #15 Until 9/11, weren't there 35K flights a day? Quite a bit different than Israel. Unless I'm cleared as a non-threat now and a sleeper and decide to boom everyone in 20 years, there's got to be another way. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2010-11-21 11:18 |
| #14 It doesn't expand the bureaucracy Dogsbody. And Homeland Security (or at least the Secretary) is working very hard to unionize the TSA workers. What? Did you think this was about safety? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-11-21 11:04 |
| #13 I can't help but think that a one time system of clearance, like the background check for a secret clearance, would place 95% of people into a good to fly class. The TSA could then concentrate its efforts on the remaining 5%. I seem to recall this was considered for frequent flyers, but why not the larger population? As Dr. Strangelove said "We can use computers" |
| Posted by: Dogsbody 2010-11-21 10:53 |
| #12 Barney Frank is taking the lead on this issue, and says he'll be flying commercial exclusively from now on. And no, he won't be going through the scanner. |
| Posted by: WacoINMN 2010-11-21 10:33 |
| #11 "I'm constantly asking them whether is what we're doing absolutely necessary, have we thought it through, are there other ways of accomplishing it that meet the same objectives." Ask the Israelis next time before you tell them how you have the solution to their 'problems'. How many El Al planes have been bombed or hijacked in the last couple of decades? /rhet question |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-11-21 08:42 |
| #10 He always says that he understands the American people, but does he really? NO, and the American people don't understand him either. |
| Posted by: HammerHead 2010-11-21 08:14 |
| #9 People who fly the most will be the first test of Obamacare. Maybe they'll die before they start collecting Social Security. Coincidence? Or two-for-one? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2010-11-21 07:41 |
| #8 He said a type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, which occurs mainly on the head and neck and is usually curable, is the most likely risk from the airport scanners. I must have missed the huge signs hanger of the scanners warning of this. No help for existing conditions either I don't suppose. Thanks for the heads up Uncle Sam. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-11-21 06:24 |
| #7 He understands ire. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-11-21 04:15 |
| #6 let the airlines set and carry out the security. the market will quickly sift through and find the most acceptable cost/intrusive/effective security solution. |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2010-11-21 03:10 |
| #5 Radiation Doses 20 Times Higher then Official Estimates. Dr. Brenner, who was consulted to write guidelines for the security scanners in 2002, claims he would not have signed the report had he known the devices would be so widely used. He said a type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, which occurs mainly on the head and neck and is usually curable, is the most likely risk from the airport scanners. |
| Posted by: Cholusing Sproing4740 2010-11-21 02:49 |
| #4 The American people do not want it. Given a choice, I believe most people would forego much of the new enhanced security crap. Given that the American people don't want it, if our representatives did their jobs, it would just go away. Napolitano and the rest think they have an obligation to provide perfect security that makes perfect sense. They do not. They need to provide security that works well enough, and not security that makes people upset no matter how rational it is. Most if not all of the terror attacks on airplanes have come from overseas since 9/11. Figure it out. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-11-21 02:46 |
| #3 The Fourth Amendment |
| Posted by: Cholusing Sproing4740 2010-11-21 02:19 |
| #2 "I'm constantly asking them whether is what we're doing absolutely necessary, have we thought it through, are there other ways of accomplishing it that meet the same objectives." And they tell him "Buzz off, who the **** do you think you are!"? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-11-21 01:44 |
| #1 "I understand people's frustrations," Obama said, while acknowledging that he's never had to undergo the stepped-up screening methods. The part in bold is the problem - if the president and members of Congress had to go through screening with rest of us, the whole problem would be gone in a heartbeat. Within seconds, there would be an executive order and a joint resolution from Congress to say in no uncertain terms "Don't touch my junk!" Of course, to paraphrase Glenn Reynolds, security, like taxes, is for the little people. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2010-11-21 01:08 |
