Three year old boy in wheelchair searched by TSA

i dont think terrorist have an age limit

ADG

So what's your point?

wow watch the viudeo the little kid is scared and doesnt know whats going on some weird guy feeling on his handicapped broken legs for guns?

OMG fuckin ay the terrorists have fun long ago when the first US soldier died fighting this war for oil.

that video should disturb any parent. if that was my kid id tel the guy get his fucking hands off my child

"The three minute clip, which was shot by the boy's father Matt Dubiel, shows the boy looking increasingly alarmed as a TSA agent swabs the boy's hands, legs, and back for residue from explosives. Apparently, the child's parents were not allowed to comfort him or hold his hand during the process. You can hear Dubiel assuring his son that everything will be OK and trying to keep his son from having a panic attack."

Conversely, What a good place to hide explosives.

.

They are just doing their job to protect the people.

Why do you hate America?

I wonder what wars will be fought about when we run out of oil.

You have to remember, those TSA idiots are automatons, executing a liberal politically correct appeasement program.

how fitting ... an OLD cite ...

"This, and no other, is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector."

--Plato

The product of liberalism and political correctness. God forbid anyone actually look for terrorists because that would be racial profiling and discriminatory and the lawsuits would never end.

So here you are.. a government agency assigned to secure air travel, forced to search down 90 year old Swedish women and 3yr olds in wheel chairs because sniveling pussies think its discriminatory if they look for terrorists.

Hope and Change! Oh... wait...

Actually how many times have we seen children used in wars? Makes sense to search him if you actually care about your safety. Of course I don't care that much and would rather not be 'randomly' screened myself.

yeah. As it is, I refuse to take the x-ray machine scan when I fly, and I make them pat me down, but If they try that with my son, we just won't be flying that day.

And since they have a regulation that once you start the screening process, you MUST complete it, I guess I will be waiting there for the police to show up.


I will NOT comply with that shit.

This is not the country that I grew up in, or the country that I fought for.


Makes me nauseous.



Lets make our kids all compliant, so that any goon in a uniform is seen by them as someone that can pat you down, anytime, with no reason, and fondle your privates. This will work out great for pedos, they can just put on a blue shirt and a fake bacge, and get kids to submit to groping..




.

The girl at the end, fuck, she needs my dick balls deep in her ass.

exactly oh man i heard some stuff from my step dads friend who fought in vietnam.

police state = dictatorship.

How many explosives have they found since 2001 in airline screening in the US? Anyone?

old people, children even dogs are used to transport explosives...

the american people were lead to believe that their governments action will not have an opposite equal reaction...that they are somehow immune to any consequences...

its the price you pay for telling other countries how to live...not being a hater just pointing out the obvious

TSA Creator Says Dismantle, Privatize the Agency
by Audrey Hudson
09/12/2011


They?ve been accused of rampant thievery, spending billions of dollars like drunken sailors, groping children and little old ladies, and making everyone take off their shoes.

But the real job of the tens of thousands of screeners at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is to protect Americans from a terrorist attack.

Yet a decade after the TSA was created following the September 11 attacks, the author of the legislation that established the massive agency grades its performance at ?D-.?

?The whole program has been hijacked by bureaucrats,? said Rep. John Mica (R. -Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

?It mushroomed into an army,? Mica said. ?It?s gone from a couple-billion-dollar enterprise to close to $9 billion.?

As for keeping the American public safe, Mica says, ?They?ve failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years.?

?Everything they have done has been reactive. They take shoes off because of [shoe-bomber] Richard Reid, passengers are patted down because of the diaper bomber, and you can?t pack liquids because the British uncovered a plot using liquids,? Mica said.

?It?s an agency that is always one step out of step,? Mica said.

It cost $1 billion just to train workers, which now number more than 62,000, and ?they actually trained more workers than they have on the job,? Mica said.

?The whole thing is a complete fiasco,? Mica said.

In a wide-ranging interview with HUMAN EVENTS just days before the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Mica said screeners should be privatized and the agency dismantled.

Instead, the agency should number no more than 5,000, and carry out his original intent, which was to monitor terrorist threats and collect intelligence.

The fledgling agency was quickly engulfed in its first scandal in 2002 as it rushed to hire 30,000 screeners, and the $104 million awarded to the company to contract workers quickly escalated to more than $740 million.

Federal investigators tracked those cost overruns to recruiting sessions held at swank hotels and resorts in St. Croix, the Virgin Islands, Florida and the Wyndham Peaks Resort and Golden Door Spa in Telluride, Colo.

Charges in the hundreds of thousands of dollars were made for cash withdrawals, valet parking and beverages, plus a $5.4 million salary for one executive for nine months of work.

Other over-the-top expenditures included nearly $2,000 for 20 gallons of Starbucks Coffee, $8,000 for elevator operators at a Manhattan hotel, and $1,500 to rent more than a dozen extension cords for the Colorado recruiting fair.

The agency inadvertently caused security gaps by failing for years to keep track of lost uniforms and passes that lead to restricted areas of airports.

Screeners have also been accused of committing crimes, from smuggling drugs to stealing valuables from passengers' luggage. In 2004, several screeners were arrested and charged with stealing jewelry, computers and cameras, cash, credit cards and other valuables. One of their more notable victims was actress Shirley McClain, who was robbed of jewelry and crystals.

One of the screeners confessed that he was trying to steal enough to sell the items and buy a big-screen television.

In 2006, screeners at Los Angeles and Chicago O'Hare airports failed to find more than 60% of fake explosives during checkpoint security tests.

The sometimes rudder-less agency has gone through five administrators in the past decade, and it took longer than a year for President Obama to put his one man in place. Mica?s bill also blocked collective bargaining rights for screeners, but the Obama administration managed to reverse that provision.

Asked whether the agency should be privatized, Mica answered with a qualified yes.

?They need to get out of the screening business and back into security. Most of the screening they do should be abandoned,? Mica said. "I just don?t have a lot of faith at this point,? Mica said.

Allowing airports to privatize screening was a key element of Mica?s legislation and a report released by the committee in June determined that privatizing those efforts would result in a 40% savings for taxpayers.

?We have thousands of workers trying to do their job. My concern is the bureaucracy we built,? Mica said.

?We are one of the only countries still using this model of security," Mica said, "other than Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, and I think, Libya."

parents stash drugs on kids all the time. you would be surprised.

Maybe we should privatize government. Lets appoint the richest person as king. Problems: solved.

Yea, we're hated for our freedoms.

I don't agree with pj much, but in this case I do....as stupid as most TSA agents are, there are people who are downright fucking evil. There have been cases of people hauling baby carcasses stuffed full of drugs.

It's why I feel better about supporting animal rights over human rights. People are just viruses with shoes....

Drug sniffing dog is much cheaper.

yeah the idiots in toronto woke up our son by searching his stroller

meanwhile...hate to say it..but i watched 3 muslim families walk through screening and you would think the tsa agents were afraid to search them further

at what point in history were we not at a state of war to some degree? Oil hasn't increased a thing..

i want to clarify...that im not slighting muslim families.
rather the choices on who to profile by the tsa

it really seemed to me that they were giving those families a pass based on their background.

Worst-Case Thinking Makes Us Nuts, Not Safe
By Bruce Schneier

May 13, 2010
Worst-Case Thinking

At a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel of distinguished cybersecurity leaders what their nightmare scenario was. The answers were the predictable array of large-scale attacks: against our communications infrastructure, against the power grid, against the financial system, in combination with a physical attack.

I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My nightmare scenario is that people keep talking about their nightmare scenarios."

There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism.

Worst-case thinking means generally bad decision making for several reasons. First, it's only half of the cost-benefit equation. Every decision has costs and benefits, risks and rewards. By speculating about what can possibly go wrong, and then acting as if that is likely to happen, worst-case thinking focuses only on the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at assessing outcomes.

Second, it's based on flawed logic. It begs the question by assuming that a proponent of an action must prove that the nightmare scenario is impossible.

Third, it can be used to support any position or its opposite. If we build a nuclear power plant, it could melt down. If we don't build it, we will run short of power and society will collapse into anarchy. If we allow flights near Iceland's volcanic ash, planes will crash and people will die. If we don't, organs won?t arrive in time for transplant operations and people will die. If we don't invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein might use the nuclear weapons he might have. If we do, we might destabilize the Middle East, leading to widespread violence and death.

Of course, not all fears are equal. Those that we tend to exaggerate are more easily justified by worst-case thinking. So terrorism fears trump privacy fears, and almost everything else; technology is hard to understand and therefore scary; nuclear weapons are worse than conventional weapons; our children need to be protected at all costs; and annihilating the planet is bad. Basically, any fear that would make a good movie plot is amenable to worst-case thinking.

Fourth and finally, worst-case thinking validates ignorance. Instead of focusing on what we know, it focuses on what we don't know -- and what we can imagine.

Remember Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's quote? "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." And this: "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Ignorance isn't a cause for doubt; when you can fill that ignorance with imagination, it can be a call to action.

Even worse, it can lead to hasty and dangerous acts. You can't wait for a smoking gun, so you act as if the gun is about to go off. Rather than making us safer, worst-case thinking has the potential to cause dangerous escalation.

The new undercurrent in this is that our society no longer has the ability to calculate probabilities. Risk assessment is devalued. Probabilistic thinking is repudiated in favor of "possibilistic thinking": Since we can't know what's likely to go wrong, let's speculate about what can possibly go wrong.

Worst-case thinking leads to bad decisions, bad systems design, and bad security. And we all have direct experience with its effects: airline security and the TSA, which we make fun of when we're not appalled that they're harassing 93-year-old women or keeping first graders off airplanes. You can't be too careful!

Actually, you can. You can refuse to fly because of the possibility of plane crashes. You can lock your children in the house because of the possibility of child predators. You can eschew all contact with people because of the possibility of hurt. Steven Hawking wants to avoid trying to communicate with aliens because they might be hostile; does he want to turn off all the planet's television broadcasts because they're radiating into space? It isn't hard to parody worst-case thinking, and at its extreme it's a psychological condition.

Frank Furedi, a sociology professor at the University of Kent, writes: "Worst-case thinking encourages society to adopt fear as one of the dominant principles around which the public, the government and institutions should organize their life. It institutionalizes insecurity and fosters a mood of confusion and powerlessness. Through popularizing the belief that worst cases are normal, it incites people to feel defenseless and vulnerable to a wide range of future threats."

Even worse, it plays directly into the hands of terrorists, creating a population that is easily terrorized -- even by failed terrorist attacks like the Christmas Day underwear bomber and the Times Square SUV bomber.

When someone is proposing a change, the onus should be on them to justify it over the status quo. But worst-case thinking is a way of looking at the world that exaggerates the rare and unusual and gives the rare much more credence than it deserves.

It isn't really a principle; it's a cheap trick to justify what you already believe. It lets lazy or biased people make what seem to be cogent arguments without understanding the whole issue. And when people don't need to refute counterarguments, there's no point in listening to them.

This essay was originally published on CNN.com

sucks to be him!

man they look cartoonish where's that i can count to potato pic ?

another dangerous threat to national security has been neutralized gentlemen. good work

why not post the story where the "kid in the wheelchair" was actually a dummy stuffed with nuclear material en route to iran?

who is laughing now?

I think that the TSA and most current security is absolutely ridiculous overkill, distracting attention from where the focus should really lie.

With that said, I could sneak a bomb into most places with my wheelchair. At an airport today, I couldn't, they are pretty thorough, three years ago I could have though. They were not as thorough.

It always amazes me that we haven't had a wheelchair bomber yet. It would be very easy to do.

One second… the FBI is on my door.

Not defending the TSA, most certainly this could have been handled better.

BUT, terrorists and fanatics have shown no hesitation in killing children, why assume they wouldn't use one?

You always have the freedom to choose not to fly.

Right, people want it both ways. Up in arms about terrible security when thousands die and then up in arms when they are trying to take measures to prevent it again.

Up in arms about profiling people for searches and then up in arms when they do it randomly including children and elderly also.

http://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=18834668&postcount=31

i feel much safer now. I think a cavity search was in order here. You never know, a terrorist could of stuck a bomb up the kids ass ?

They choose randomly to avoid profiling issues.

A. You don't want PR problems if you have TSA employees only looking at who they consider suspicious.

B. You don't want "non-suspicous" people being passed up for the same reason.

Paranoia Inc.

Just cause you're paranoid,
doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Just cause you're paranoid,
doesn't mean you are not schizophrenic.

Didn't someone put a bomb in his wife's suitcase in the 70s? This was a reason for initial screening I think, maybe someone can provide a link

People are fucking evil and will do anything.

sadly. this is one of those things, if you dont like it, dont fly.

no point saying america is losing its freedom as this is the same in europe as well.


what happens when a plane explodes because evil parents stuffed a bomb in their kids wheelchair? if terrorists see a loophole they will go for it.

you same morons who preach about freedom would moan that there was not enough security.

I saw a movie once where an ice cream truck was made of pot. So a stroller made from dynamite isn't to far fetched.

.

Not true for me. If I have to choose between freedom and risk, or massive government intrusion and safety, I'll take freedom and risk any day. By the time that those of you who see nothing wrong with this and just say "If you don't like it, don't fly", will be singing a different tune by the time the government is intruding into EVERYTHING you do...

...and by then it will be far, far, too late, and there will be nothing you will be able to do about it, because the baby's being born now, are being taught that almost everything the government does in the name of "safety and security", is OK.



.

Who do you mean by "they". Terrorists or the society?

What I meant: Paranoia Inc. = The Society

The wheelchair kid refused to be searched so.........

Terrorist

The wheelchair kid should have activated the bomb.. hehehe!