Napolitano: ‘Junk’ Pat-Downs Vital, Remember the Underwear Bomber?

November 15, 2010


5 Responses to “Napolitano: ‘Junk’ Pat-Downs Vital, Remember the Underwear Bomber?”

  1. Old Man Dotes on November 15th, 2010 1:11 pm

    “In her OP/Ed, Napolitano responds to the growing backlash against intrusive security measures, by reminding us they were put in place to defend against the very real threat of terrorist attacks. ”

    Bullshit. They were put in place to get Americans used to the idea that the Fourth Amendment no longer applies the the TSA thugs, and that the Constitution is optional if the Nazis want to search you or your possessions.

    The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Nothing in there says “unless that’s inconvenient to the Government and might make it necessary for the intelligence agencies to get off their fat asses and do their jobs.”

  2. Fred W on November 15th, 2010 1:47 pm

    The TSA has already admitted that the scanners would not have detected the device the underwear bomber was carrying. In fact, the underwear bomber was escorted on the plane without going through security.

    My daughter has a pin in here leg due to a bone defect. If the TSA requests the enhanced “pat-down”, both of her parents will say NO to the TSA groping.

  3. LMFH on November 15th, 2010 4:37 pm

    First it was the shoes and then the control of liquids and gels, now it’s obnoxious searches and full body scans that leave you and your “privates” not so private.
    Does someone actually think that a terrorist can’t get around this?
    Napolitano and her allusion to the Underwear Bomber will soon be Napolitano alluding to the “terrorist to be” who shoves something down his throat or up his a** so we will then get cavity checked.
    When will it stop?
    Remember, “If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, he’ll jump out. But if you place a frog into a pot of lukewarm water and slowly turn up the heat, it will boil to death.”

  4. j on November 15th, 2010 7:49 pm

    Neither my wife nor my daughter nor myself will be going through the body scanners. Mans natural instinct is to protect himself and his family.. especially when you have some lower class pervert or lesbian feeling you up and grabbing your childs private area… so I am definitely not sure what the TSA is thinking here…. it is crossing the line.

  5. Maralago on November 15th, 2010 10:19 pm

    Nothing is stupider than the “1 oz of liquid” rule. Did it never occur to any of these morons that anyone can bring unlimited liquids in multiple bottles as long as they fit in the stupid plastic bag? In other words, 12 oz of some bomb-making liquid (if there is such a thing) could easily fit in a baggie so what the h#ll is the point of limiting all our crap to one ounce?? Except to make retailers rich with their expensive little sample size crap, not to mention not even being able to bring a frigging bottle of water with me, I have to pay $3 in the damn airport. Pretty soon the airports will be totally empty and I guess that’s a surefire way to beat terrorism.

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.