Quote:
Originally Posted by Toughy
Using face-to-face communication with a passenger is far more than: where are you flying and why are you going and when will you be back. There are very proven techniques to ascertain if someone needs a closer look. That is what the 'well trained' part means.
I have no issues with metal detectors and wands and looking at your carry-on baggage. It's a perfectly reasonable thing and is not invasive
Taking off your shoes is stupid. No disposable lighters was stupid, especially when you could have 3 books of matches on the plane. No more than 3oz of any liquid/gel and it has to be in only a quart size baggie is stupid. Poorly trained, poorly paid security folks does not make us safer. Those things make up less safe.
As to cost in the US.........LMAO......you cannot be serious...... How many trillions of dollars are we spending in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and ________ to kill and main our soldiers and all those 'non-combantants'? How many years have we been doing that? And let's not talk about how many terrorists we are creating because we are killing people. And all of it 'off the budget'. To use cost as a reason is ludicrious, stupid and irrational.
Well trained and paid security professionals in our airports, combining face-to-face and non-invasive techniques keeps us safer and is less dangerous to passengers and professionals.
I also want to be clear. What happens to your checked baggage and behind the scenes at train stations, bus stations, ports, etc needs to be mind blowingly strict. I say use every bit of technology in available and make new technology. I have a hard time believing that I can use Google Earth and look at me on my deck and we can't have a look at everything that comes in and out of our seaports, airports, etc. For the cost argument see above.
|
I agree. And if we stopped spending a fortune on wars that we should never have been in, and stopped thinking (and acting) that we have the right to tell the rest of the world how to live and how to think...then we'd have both less need to spend money on airport security and more money left to do it.
Might be hard to understand Toughy...but I never had an issue with your opinion. I have disagreed with others on this thread and have no issue with them at all. My issue was with how you said what you said...and with the implication that anyone who doesn't agree with you is irrational and stupid.
On some points we agree, on some we disagree...and I'm fine with all of that.