I don't think you get it, guy. Non-discriminatory security checks SAVE LIVES.
No, you don't think, and you shouldn't try to think that much all in one go anyways or you'll strain yourself. You got to take it easy at first. Warm up a bit, start with a bit of mild mental callisthenics first, then work your way up to more thinking as you get more fit.
Now that that's out of the way: I don't disagree that non-discriminatory security makes sense. The argument I'm making is that the approach we currently have against security is wrong. Not because it doesn't discriminate, but because it's not
risk-based. A risk-based approach to security is based on sound principles and is backed up by research and real-world experience and is, in fact, the approach advocated by numerous security experts.
You come off like some culturally insensitive xenophobe with your suggestion that PROFILING, God forbid, might be a reasonable necessity for air-travel safety.
Culturally insensitive xenophobe? I never argued that profiling is a reasonable necessity for anything, although I think that in adopting a risk-based approach, factors that screeners cannot currently employ could be used.
Who are you to say a wheelchaired 3 year-old is off limits?
I didn't say they're off-limits. I complained about the way they were treated, and about the fact that despite having few - if any - risk identifiers, had an overwhelming amount of attention placed on her, which would have been better spent by examining more people, more carefully.
Also - and this may be too subtle a point for someone with the IQ of tepid bathwater to understand - please note that there's a difference between performing a careful and thorough search of someone and abusing someone.
Tell us:
- Do you really think that it is appropriate for screeners to squeeze urostomy bags until they burst and is it good security to do so?
- Do you really think that it is good security to prevent carrying the Medal of Honor on a plane because it's shaped like a "throwing-star" and could be used as a weapon?
- Do you really think that it is necessary to force patients who are bringing along medication for which they have a prescription from choosing between flying and going into a diabetic coma?
Are you a mind reader?
If I were, I wouldn't ask you the above questions, would I?
Perhaps she has deep-seated ideological, theological, and/or political beefs with her government, and she's willing to take it all the way. Do you KNOW?
Who? The three-year old? I very much doubt a three year old girl has any deep-seated ideological, theological and/or political beliefs about anything, except perhaps, her favorite blankey.
As for her parents? Sure, maybe they do, and maybe they're willing to use their daughter as means to an end. Which is why you want a risk-based approach.
But you're cool just rolling her C4-rigged bombchair right past Shaneekwa's wand simply because she's a crippled fetus.
Your attempt to construct a straw-man argument that approximates what you perceive my position to be is laughable at best.
Or is it because she's not holding a Koran? Just say it.
It's actually because like most young girls, she is statistically likely to listen to Justin Bieber. You exposed me.
Fascist!
Oh, one last question. What are
your credentials in the security field? Just curious...
