View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Isla Guapa
Joined: 19 Apr 2010 Posts: 1520 Location: Mexico City o sea La Gran Manzana Mexicana
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
chaiplz
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 Posts: 108 Location: Boston, MA
|
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aw, poor thing
The procedure needs to be modified for children, but it does need to be there. There are evil people in this world who would use a child to carry dangerous items if they knew that kids were exempt or not as closely searched.
It's messed up. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spiral78
Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 11534 Location: On a Short Leash
|
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought she looked pretty shady, for a six-year-old |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sashadroogie
Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 11061 Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Never ever trust a six-year-old... most spirits need to be at least 12 hic |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kornan DeKobb
Joined: 24 Jan 2010 Posts: 242
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
chaiplz wrote: |
Aw, poor thing
The procedure needs to be modified for children, but it does need to be there. There are evil people in this world who would use a child to carry dangerous items if they knew that kids were exempt or not as closely searched.
It's messed up. |
What you said sure is! By your logic, let's just put cameras in everyone's homes so we can be sure that people are not committing crimes. Do the words "probable cause" have any meaning for you?
Since when does my use of an airplane mean I must give up my rights to be free from suspicion and that I must let my kids be sexually assaulted by strange government employees?
Creeping creepy government fascism has crept too far already. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spiral78
Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 11534 Location: On a Short Leash
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why do people think children should be sheltered from the real world? As chaiplz points out, there are people in the world who would use any means to carry out a terrorist attack, and aircraft are obviously notorious targets for them.
What's so difficult about explaining to your child that airport security is there to keep us safe, and that they sometimes check both adults and children? I don't see why it's considered so terribly traumatic - it's all about the spin the responsible adults put on it.
C'mon- doctors touch children and adults for the same reasons -to keep us safe.
It's a reasonable precaution in the realms of health and safety. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kornan DeKobb
Joined: 24 Jan 2010 Posts: 242
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
spiral78 wrote: |
Why do people think children should be sheltered from the real world? As chaiplz points out, there are people in the world who would use any means to carry out a terrorist attack, and aircraft are obviously notorious targets for them.
What's so difficult about explaining to your child that airport security is there to keep us safe, and that they sometimes check both adults and children? I don't see why it's considered so terribly traumatic - it's all about the spin the responsible adults put on it.
C'mon- doctors touch children and adults for the same reasons -to keep us safe.
It's a reasonable precaution in the realms of health and safety. |
Children should not be sheltered from the real world for too long. That is why one should begin to explain at the level appropriate for them that their freedom is valuable and they should resist efforts, such as these unnecessary patdowns, to take it away.
Sorry, but I don't have the time to decondition you from your police state mentality.
For one thing, I choose to go to the doctor and can refuse if I want to. Simply not flying is not a viable option in today's world.
Now be a good German, get in line, and shut up. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guy Courchesne
Joined: 10 Mar 2003 Posts: 9650 Location: Mexico City
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
What's so difficult about explaining to your child that airport security is there to keep us safe, and that they sometimes check both adults and children? I don't see why it's considered so terribly traumatic - it's all about the spin the responsible adults put on it. |
You're probably right with this viewpoint for parents. My concern as a parent is that you spend so much time teaching your children what inappropriate touching is and to report it, yet here it is at the airport. If I were in the situation with my daughter as described in the article, I am fairly certain I would cause an incident unable to contain myself. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kornan DeKobb
Joined: 24 Jan 2010 Posts: 242
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guy Courchesne wrote: |
Quote: |
What's so difficult about explaining to your child that airport security is there to keep us safe, and that they sometimes check both adults and children? I don't see why it's considered so terribly traumatic - it's all about the spin the responsible adults put on it. |
You're probably right with this viewpoint for parents. My concern as a parent is that you spend so much time teaching your children what inappropriate touching is and to report it, yet here it is at the airport. If I were in the situation with my daughter as described in the article, I am fairly certain I would cause an incident unable to contain myself. |
I'm shocked the parent in the video didn't go nuts. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spiral78
Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 11534 Location: On a Short Leash
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
My concern as a parent is that you spend so much time teaching your children what inappropriate touching is and to report it, yet here it is at the airport. If I were in the situation with my daughter as described in the article, I am fairly certain I would cause an incident unable to contain myself. |
Guy, I get this and sympathise with the need to warn your kids about danger. But the very clear distinction here, which I think even a small child will understand, is that mommy and daddy are there with you and they say it's ok in this situation. I don't think it would be wise to traumatise a small child by making a scene at the airport. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guy Courchesne
Joined: 10 Mar 2003 Posts: 9650 Location: Mexico City
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again, you're right with this approach, at least considering there is little alternative except not to fly. The part of me that isn't a parent is just as incensed that it is now the norm to have 'officials' groping whoever they please and that this level of personal invasion is rapidly becoming OK with people. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spiral78
Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 11534 Location: On a Short Leash
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can totally agree that it's a pity we have to be so paranoid. But there are obvious reasons for the serious security.
I really think it's the best course of action to be matter-of-fact with children about these things. Perhaps a good idea for either dad or mum to also volunteer for a pat-down, in the case that one's child is requested to subject to it.
It's probably very unfair for me to pose the next question, but what the heck:
I wonder to what degree the story might have been widely perceived differently if the child in question had brown skin and was accompanied by a dark-complexioned father and a headscarved mother? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Isla Guapa
Joined: 19 Apr 2010 Posts: 1520 Location: Mexico City o sea La Gran Manzana Mexicana
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder how I'd react if chosen for the kind of pat-down reserved for adults. I might just go ballistic on my own behalf!
In any event, even the government is having second thoughts about searching six-year-olds in this way:
In a statement, the Transportation Security Administration says the officer followed proper procedure but that the agency is reviewing its screening policies for "low-risk populations, such as young passengers." The statement says the agency is exploring ways to "move beyond a one-size fits all system." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spiral78
Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 11534 Location: On a Short Leash
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've had the pat-down, in Amsterdam (heading to the US) and in Atlanta. It's not anything nice, but it's extremely impersonal, takes a very short time, and I just dont' think it's anything to get hung up on.
I mean, if it ever prevents even one Bad Guy or Lady from an act of terror, or from exploiting a child for such purposes, it was worth it.
Now, the schnauzer, on the other hand....requires a muzzle to submit to a pat-down by strangers |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chaiplz
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 Posts: 108 Location: Boston, MA
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kornan DeKobb wrote: |
chaiplz wrote: |
Aw, poor thing
The procedure needs to be modified for children, but it does need to be there. There are evil people in this world who would use a child to carry dangerous items if they knew that kids were exempt or not as closely searched.
It's messed up. |
What you said sure is! By your logic, let's just put cameras in everyone's homes so we can be sure that people are not committing crimes. Do the words "probable cause" have any meaning for you?
|
Really? Really? I've had the pat down for adults (the x ray machines weird me out) and while it was thorough it was not sexual assault. TSA Agents don't get their jollies off by doing pat downs. Personally, the lady that did mine was very nice and professional. Was it uncomfortable? Yes. Is it necessary? Yes.
Quote: |
Since when does my use of an airplane mean I must give up my rights to be free from suspicion and that I must let my kids be sexually assaulted by strange government employees? |
You give up your rights to be free from suspicion when you choose to fly. As much as I hate to say it, flying is a privilege, not a right. I think a lot of people forget that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|