> If a plane blew up because of X, wouldn't you want to make sure that the TSA > is making sure that nobody boarding the plane is able to do X?
Of course. However that doesn't mean to prevent 'X' it gives them the right to do anything they want. > > If I give you the choice between boarding a plane where everybody has been > searched for X and another plane where nobody has, which plane will you > board? But you see, not everyone gets the backscatter/pat-down, so your entire premise is null. > > The "rectal" thing is just an unconvincing red herring. Of course we don't > want to go that far, Whoa.. hold on... YOU don't want to go that far. I'm sure there would be people who would not have a problem with it. Suddenly its a problem because it bothers you, whereas the sexual assault victim who breaks down crying at one of the TSA pat-downs, well since it doesn't bother you it shouldn't bother them. > this won't happen again, but fundamentally, I really don't find anything > wrong with the idea that once a certain method of blowing up a plane has > been discovered, the TSA should make sure this method can't be used ever > again. I don't either. But that doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. We all know that Drunk Drivers kill innocent people all the time. Why don't all cars come equipped with a Breathalyzer that must be blown in order to start the car? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
