http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

I feel that it serves no useful purpose. If I thought it actually did anything to ensure my safety, or anyone elses in flight, I would welcome it. But it doesn't.

Today in USAToday there was an article about how the public is again afraid to fly. I saved the pages but I left them in my office. Basically, they interviewed someone and that person said that after 9-11 it was the fear factor that kept people from flying. Then, it was the hassle factor of the enhanced security that kept people from flying. Then, people became comfortable again and began to fly and live with the enhanced 'security' ... until recently when the alert level went up to Orange and they were again, afraid to fly.

Eveyone here is free to surmise what they wish but to me, this says that all the so called security enhancement that has been put into place amounts to NOTHING when it comes to, not only providing a safe environment to fly in, but also in creating a false sense of security.

Here it is Admiral Loy ... everything that has been done in the name of security has done nothing to persuade the public that it is safer to fly. When the threat level was changed to Orange, they all decided it was best to stay home because they have no faith whatsoever in the TSA!

------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

[This message has been edited by tazi (edited 02-21-2003).]

I'm on a plane several times a week...and could care less whether it's Code Orange, Blue, Purple, whatever....
I do what I have to do and go where I have to go.
Bottom line, you will win the lottery twice and be struck by lightning three times before you'll ever experience terrorism.
IMHO, travel the world, enjoy life and stop worrying....

For the record, Admiral Loy did not raise the threat level, as head of the TSA that is beyond his mandate. The head of the dept. of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge raised the threat level. Your disdain for the TSA aside, please drop the hyperbole and state the facts.


"Igor, put the subject into the hyperbolic chamber!"

I hope you all know that I spelled it randum on purpose (tazi's post makes me wonder!)

After seeing the poor spelling and grammar of certain posters in this forum recently, it reminded me of our favorite EXP over in the AA forum, who likes to fly between LIT and LIM (connecting in MIA, of course, to use the Flagship L). http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ender83:
I hope you all know that I spelled it randum on purpose (tazi's post makes me wonder!)</font>

I'm so used to misspelling here that I overlooked it. Did you really not want to know what I feel about it??? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/frown.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
I feel that it serves no useful purpose. If I thought it actually did anything to ensure my safety, or anyone elses in flight, I would welcome it. But it doesn't.

Today in USAToday there was an article about how the public is again afraid to fly. I saved the pages but I left them in my office. Basically, they interviewed someone and that person said that after 9-11 it was the fear factor that kept people from flying. Then, it was the hassle factor of the enhanced security that kept people from flying. Then, people became comfortable again and began to fly and live with the enhanced 'security' ... until recently when the alert level went up to Orange and they were again, afraid to fly.

Eveyone here is free to surmise what they wish but to me, this says that all the so called security enhancement that has been put into place amounts to NOTHING when it comes to, not only providing a safe environment to fly in, but also in creating a false sense of security.

Here it is Admiral Loy ... everything that has been done in the name of security has done nothing to persuade the public that it is safer to fly. When the threat level was changed to Orange, they all decided it was best to stay home because they have no faith whatsoever in the TSA!

</font>
The actual term is continuous screening and what could security do to enhance the screening process if this was stopped?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
The actual term is continuous screening and what could security do to enhance the screening process if this was stopped?

</font>

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

Oh ... you were serious?

How about machines that work, and professional screeners who receive intense training until they are expert in learning to spot suspicious material(s)?

How about getting a system in place (and don't tell me you can't; it's done in London, among others) whereby the owners of suspicious bags are notified, and searches conducted in their presence?

How about putting together efficient, effective profiles of passengers based on their flying habits, status as a citizen / alien, known contacts, etc. and using those as starting points?

How about creating, reviewing, and implementing some sort of control mechanism for the airport property so that terminal buildings aren't evacuated at the drop of an &lt;expletive&gt; hat?

These are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. All "continuous screening" does is keep otherwise underworked screeners (and God forbid our screeners are underworked; they might fall asleep! Hello, let's clear the terminal!) busy by wasting vast numbers of man-hours looking for a needle that's almost certainly not even there in a vast, chaotic haystack.

Mook

i hate 2ndary screenings and randum screening http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/mad.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Mook:
How about putting together efficient, effective profiles of passengers based on their flying habits, status as a citizen / alien, known contacts, etc. and using those as starting points?
</font>

Oh yeah, you think THAT would go over well? Those who think their rights are being violated now would just LOVE that one. Profiling cannot be done ANYWHERE, so why would you think it would help?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Mook:
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

Oh ... you were serious?

How about machines that work, and professional screeners who receive intense training until they are expert in learning to spot suspicious material(s)?

How about getting a system in place (and don't tell me you can't; it's done in London, among others) whereby the owners of suspicious bags are notified, and searches conducted in their presence?

How about putting together efficient, effective profiles of passengers based on their flying habits, status as a citizen / alien, known contacts, etc. and using those as starting points?

How about creating, reviewing, and implementing some sort of control mechanism for the airport property so that terminal buildings aren't evacuated at the drop of an &lt;expletive&gt; hat?

These are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. All "continuous screening" does is keep otherwise underworked screeners (and God forbid our screeners are underworked; they might fall asleep! Hello, let's clear the terminal!) busy by wasting vast numbers of man-hours looking for a needle that's almost certainly not even there in a vast, chaotic haystack.

Mook</font>

The problem I see is that the TSA is expected to be as efficient as those who have been doing this for 20 years or better. It will not happen over night and I bet that the overseas airports had the same growing problems also.

Tell that to the 3,000 people that died at the WTC. How many of them do you think were lottery winners or victims of a lightning strike?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Cholula:
I'm on a plane several times a week...and could care less whether it's Code Orange, Blue, Purple, whatever....
I do what I have to do and go where I have to go.
Bottom line, you will win the lottery twice and be struck by lightning three times before you'll ever experience terrorism.
IMHO, travel the world, enjoy life and stop worrying....</font>

Weren't there absolutely no security violations on September 11th? Were not the planes taken over with permissible knives and box cutters? On September 11th, there were no reinforced cockpit doors, correct?
So, if we had the TSA on 9/11 with those legal regulations in place, how would the TSA have saved those 3,000 lives given that the terrorists could have boarded with their knives and box cutters onto airplanes with unreinforced cockpit doors without being in violation of any laws? Thus, now that we've changed these laws and procedures (particularly with reinforced doors), how is the TSA even necessary? Surely, any security guard or x-ray machine can pick up the metal in a box cutter or small knife. IMHO, the TSA is absolutely unnecessary no matter how friendly or speedy they may be. And even if we need TSA to check for small knives, with 66,000 of them, we have TSA overkill. Finally, if it is such an important position {as many here maintain}, shouldn't the educational bar be fairly high (e.g., a college degree in an applicable field such as law, psychology, criminal justice, etc.)?

[This message has been edited by 1K wannabe (edited 02-21-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by 1K wannabe:
Weren't there absolutely no security violations on September 11th? </font>

That's right, kids: box cutters (not to mention blades up to 4") were absolutely sterile. In retrospect, this was a very bad idea, and changing this rule has been one of the few post 9-11 security improvements.

tazi, I did want to know how you felt about it, I just also wanted to make sure that no one would think I would actually spell random as randum without making fun of someone. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

1KWANNABE, for your enjoyment.

"Nine of the hijackers who commandeered jetliners on Sept. 11 were selected for special security screenings that morning, including two who were singled out because of irregularities in their identification documents, U.S. officials said this week. Six were chosen for extra scrutiny by a computerized screening system, prompting a sweep of their checked baggage for explosives or unauthorized weapons, authorities said. The ninth was listed on ticket documents as traveling with one of the hijackers with questionable identification." -- Washington Post, 3/2/02

With those document irregularites, they should never have been allowed on the plane. Those rules were in effect before 9/11 yet the security let them go through anyway. Boxcutters aside, the security people in place at the time did not do their jobs.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tmspa:
Tell that to the 3,000 people that died at the WTC. How many of them do you think were lottery winners or victims of a lightning strike?</font>

And what were they supposed to do differently? Not go to work that morning? How about EVERY morning?

Don't you see how silly you are being? Cholula is absolutely right, just as a statistical matter. Very, very few of us will EVER see a terrorist or a terrorist act, even if we went out searching for one!

In fact -- as I've said before -- probably no one at the TSA has ever seen a terrorist or a terrorist act, either. But they sometimes get into the mind-set that all of us ordinary travelers are terrorists, or certainly potentiwal terrorists. That's what happens when you don't get any REAL events to occupy your time. You start to make them up. Ah, security breach! Evacuate the terminals!

Bruce

Ran "dumb" screening?

It's the fallacy of effort = effectiveness.

We want to work noisily and hard at what we are doing, and pretend that our noisy efforts mean we are being effective.

American travelers see the TSA gauntlet and all the hassle and say "yes, that is what I want, they are keeping me safe."

I think the TSA's mandate is to make people think the government is "doing something" about terrorism, so people don't think they are helpless.

In reality, we are helpless to "fight" terrorism, just as you or I can be struck dead by cancer or a virus or some disease.

This is somehow an unacceptable "secret" to those in charge. Apparently the belief is that people can't find out that they are utterly helpless against terrorism.

But the fact is that we all know we are vulnerable. But our brains have some little organs in them that tell us that we are invulnerable and in control, even though really we are not.

At best, true screening will move terrorism (what little there really is) to other places than airports and airplanes. I think one benefit to the government of the 9/11 incident is that it allows them to increase control over our travels and our lives, which serves to help allay the paranoia of those in "intelligence" and "defense".

I am not sure what scares me more:

The fact that there are TSA employees who actually believe that they make Air Travel Safe.

Or

That they expect us to believe it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ender83:
tazi, I did want to know how you felt about it, I just also wanted to make sure that no one would think I would actually spell random as randum without making fun of someone. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif</font>

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

But ACES II, based on your quote of the Washington Post, security actually did its job and did it very well. These people were pulled aside for further screening as were their bags. There were questionable documents and those were examined. The report does not specify what were the questions and how these questions were answered such that the people were allowed to board. What was in error with documents that security would have been expected to prevent boarding? Their luggage cleared explosive testing. In the end, it was not the questionable documents or identification that was used for hijacking the planes, it was the knives and boxcutters, which were permissible. They're now not and doors are reinforced.

[This message has been edited by 1K wannabe (edited 02-22-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CameraGuy:
I am not sure what scares me more:

The fact that there are TSA employees who actually believe that they make Air Travel Safe.

Or

That they expect us to believe it.
</font>
Why does this scare you? I work with several retired people who after 9-11 felt compeled to do something for the sake of the nation. Many of these are Vietnam veterans and veterans of other wars to include retired police officers. Are you calling these people ignorant?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:

Why does this scare you? I work with several retired people who after 9-11 felt compeled to do something for the sake of the nation. Many of these are Vietnam veterans and veterans of other wars to include retired police officers. Are you calling these people ignorant?

</font>

Being a veteran of Viet Nam or a retired police officer is not proof that a person is not ignorant.

Not all vets or retired cops are ignorant, but that status does not guarantee a lack of ignorance.

Besides, I don't think the poster called them ignorant, did they?

I am saying that if they ACTUALLY believe that the job they perfom has ANY impact on security and safety WHATSOEVER, then they are naive at best.

The TSA and it's functions are WINDOW DRESSING. Very costly Window Dressing, but Window Dressing none the less.

tsadude,

I think the original point was that most of the things that the TSA does hassle ordinary travelers like us a lot more than they protect us from REAL terrorists. I'm not saying that real terrorists aren't out there, but taking away everybody's tweezers isn't going to stand in their way, is it? Real terrorists undoubtedly have ways of accomplishing their mission, and frisking 8-year-olds has nothing to do with it. It justs wastes our time and yours and all of our tax dollars.

On the other hand, the TSA is getting better -- or WAS getting better until this latest ORANGE alert, which resurrected many of the stupidest rules, unfortunately.

Bruce

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I work with several retired people who after 9-11 felt compeled to do something for the sake of the nation.</font>

Getting just a tad bit tired of patriotic flag waving as a justification for taking a job with TSA. If such principled people do exist, ask them to refuse their paycheck and maybe I'll buy into their motivation....

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Cholula:
Getting just a tad bit tired of patriotic flag waving as a justification for taking a job with TSA. If such principled people do exist, ask them to refuse their paycheck and maybe I'll buy into their motivation....</font>
It is sad that you have no respect for people who believe in doing something for their nation.

The people who supported the Nazis also believed they were doing something for their nation.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Take care that you don't become one of the asphalt spreaders.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
It is sad that you have no respect for people who believe in doing something for their nation.

</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
The people who supported the Nazis also believed they were doing something for their nation.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Take care that you don't become one of the asphalt spreaders.
Spiff,what are you so scared of?

</font>

Oh that's even better. Are you that paronoid? What are you so scared of? Do you ask to have the cameras turned off when you go into a store?


[This message has been edited by tsadude (edited 02-23-2003).]

Well, your question is something of a non-sequitur, but here goes: I am not paranoid. I simply do not want anyone pawing thru my stuff, unless there some form of probable cause for them to do so. I do not want to be pulled over without probable cause. I do not want to have my tax money and ticket fees squandered randomly harassing people or trying to find non-credible threats to aircraft. I do not want to be "mothered" with a constant "security" presence. Does that help?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
Oh that's even better. Are you that paronoid? What are you so scared of? Do you ask to have the cameras turned off when you go into a store?</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Well, your question is something of a non-sequitur, but here goes: I am not paranoid. I simply do not want anyone pawing thru my stuff, unless there some form of probable cause for them to do so. I do not want to be pulled over without probable cause. I do not want to have my tax money and ticket fees squandered randomly harassing people or trying to find non-credible threats to aircraft. I do not want to be "mothered" with a constant "security" presence. Does that help?



</font>
Probable cause can be anything that one views to be out of the ordinary such as behavior.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
Probable cause can be anything that one views to be out of the ordinary such as behavior.

</font>

Hitler thought, in his mind, that he had probable cause.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
Originally posted by Cholula:
Getting just a tad bit tired of patriotic flag waving as a justification for taking a job with TSA. If such principled people do exist, ask them to refuse their paycheck and maybe I'll buy into their motivation....</font>
It is sad that you have no respect for people who believe in doing something for their nation.
Don't believe I mentioned a lack of respect for anyone here. If someone wants to join TSA, best of luck to them. Just don't give me the flag waving reason for doing so. I maintain it's a financial decision in the VAST majority of cases. If you or the rest of the "dudes" so desperately want to do something useful in service to your country, I'd suggest you join...or rejoin... the military or police department, become an inner city teacher,etc. Pawing through someone's dirty underwear in Fargo contributes very little to the safety, security and well being of our fellow countrymen.

Amen Cholula! I too think it's mostly motivated by the goverment job salary that comes with lifetime security and excellent benefits (the feel good superiority is just icing). Isn't it a dream job--a salary range that would normally require a master's degree and 10-years' experience for little more qualification than a GED and working mall security in the summers (exceptions will apply I'm sure)? Yes, if you really want to protect your fellow citizens, then go to the police forces, work toward defeating our domestic terrorists (i.e., violent gangs, murderers, muggers, thieves, etc) and then you can talk about your patriotism and commitment to this nation's security. Until then, I see TSA employees as little more than overpaid, wimpy, welfare-to-work level employees with cushy low-skilled jobs (expections will apply). And sorry, to say it so strongly but it's representative of my experience and my judgment of the organization, its attitude and its usefulness.

Sorry, I don't accept that as being legitimate probable cause. You could then extrapolate that to having probable cause just about anytime you want. What, you object to anything that we do? We find that your behavior gives us probable cause to search you and your belongings. Is that a @#$% the TSA shirt you're wearing? That behavior gives us probable cause to give you a thorough going-over...

Unacceptable, especially in this nation.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tsadude:
Probable cause can be anything that one views to be out of the ordinary such as behavior.

</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Is that a @#$% the TSA shirt you're wearing?

</font>

Now that is something I would like to see! http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/biggrin.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Take care that you don't become one of the asphalt spreaders.
</font>

You know, Spiff, again we find agreement. Except for who we are describing.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
Hitler thought, in his mind, that he had probable cause.</font>

Another example of total supposition passed off as fact, not to mention being exceptionally insulting.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Sorry, I don't accept that as being legitimate probable cause. You could then extrapolate that to having probable cause just about anytime you want. What, you object to anything that we do? We find that your behavior gives us probable cause to search you and your belongings. Is that a @#$% the TSA shirt you're wearing? That behavior gives us probable cause to give you a thorough going-over...

Unacceptable, especially in this nation.



</font>

As long as the courts accept it as probable cause, it is the law of the land. There is a path to changing the law, but it sure isn't posting on Flyertalk.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
Another example of total supposition passed off as fact, not to mention being exceptionally insulting. </font>

What exactly about tazi's statement do you find factually inaccurate? Granted, it's somewhat of a supposition to say what was in Hitler's mind, but based on known facts I would say it's a very reasonable suggestion.

As far as changing the law of the land, I can't speak for others but I am certainly doing more about these issues than posting on FT (not to knock FT or anything). Since we live in the greatest republic in the history of the world, I encourage everyone to actively support the causes they feel strongly about.

(And I say 'we' because most of the posters in this forum are concerned with issues very specific to the United States).

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
Oh yeah, you think THAT would go over well? Those who think their rights are being violated now would just LOVE that one. Profiling cannot be done ANYWHERE, so why would you think it would help?</font>

The government of the United States of America already knows an astonishing amount about you.

They know if you're a legal resident of the United States, and whether you were born or immigrated here. Where you live, where you work, your salary. The names of your children and where they go to school. How much you pay in taxes. Your international travel habits. And that's the tip of the iceberg.

Do I like it? As a strong believer in the sanctity of an individual's privacy, I can't say that I do. But if the information is there and yet not being used, while millions of man-hours are being wasted on things such as searching shaving kits for scissors ... then, really, who's fooling whom?

I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either everyone is a potential suspect, and must be treated as such. Or there are a known list of potential suspects and/or methods for identifying same -- maybe 5% of the travelers -- on which 95% of the effort in rooting out terrorists should be expended.

The first method is very politically correct.

The second method is indisputably more effective.

Mook

[This message has been edited by Mook (edited 02-24-2003).]

Mook, you make some valid points. However, information gathered by the gov't is only to be used for specific things. I am not so trusting to actually believe that. Our SSN has become a national identification number to some extent, but it was not supposed to be that way. Whenever we give it out, those taking it are SUPPOSED to tell us why they need it and what it will be used for. That is required by the Privacy Act of 1974 yet that is not enforced. The ACLU would pounce on your idea, even though I agree with you in substance.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ender83:
What exactly about tazi's statement do you find factually inaccurate? Granted, it's somewhat of a supposition to say what was in Hitler's mind, but based on known facts I would say it's a very reasonable suggestion.</font>

I'm sorry, but we have no common ground with which to attempt to communicate as long as you feel this way. Somewhat of a supposition?

I think this is as good a time as any for me to depart these secuirty threads.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by 1K wannabe:
Amen Cholula! I too think it's mostly motivated by the goverment job salary that comes with lifetime security and excellent benefits (the feel good superiority is just icing). Isn't it a dream job--a salary range that would normally require a master's degree and 10-years' experience for little more qualification than a GED and working mall security in the summers (exceptions will apply I'm sure)? Yes, if you really want to protect your fellow citizens, then go to the police forces, work toward defeating our domestic terrorists (i.e., violent gangs, murderers, muggers, thieves, etc) and then you can talk about your patriotism and commitment to this nation's security. Until then, I see TSA employees as little more than overpaid, wimpy, welfare-to-work level employees with cushy low-skilled jobs (expections will apply). And sorry, to say it so strongly but it's representative of my experience and my judgment of the organization, its attitude and its usefulness. </font>
The average screener makes $12.00 an hour and still pays a big chunk for insurance. You may be talking about the "suits", but not at my level. Where do you get your information?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Cholula:
Originally posted by tsadude:
Originally posted by Cholula:
Getting just a tad bit tired of patriotic flag waving as a justification for taking a job with TSA. If such principled people do exist, ask them to refuse their paycheck and maybe I'll buy into their motivation....</font>
It is sad that you have no respect for people who believe in doing something for their nation.
Don't believe I mentioned a lack of respect for anyone here. If someone wants to join TSA, best of luck to them. Just don't give me the flag waving reason for doing so. I maintain it's a financial decision in the VAST majority of cases. If you or the rest of the "dudes" so desperately want to do something useful in service to your country, I'd suggest you join...or rejoin... the military or police department, become an inner city teacher,etc. Pawing through someone's dirty underwear in Fargo contributes very little to the safety, security and well being of our fellow countrymen.

Many of us do community service work and volunteer. Do you?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
Another example of total supposition passed off as fact, not to mention being exceptionally insulting. </font>

Who did I insult? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/confused.gif

btw, if you want to have a forum that adheres to strict rules of debate, that you make up as you go along and fail to follow yourself, perhaps you should start your own.



------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:


I think this is as good a time as any for me to depart these secuirty threads. </font>

We can agree on that.

I don't feel safer, just more hassled. While I agree checked bags should be screened for explosives, the current system is a waste of money until someone can figure out a way to tell the difference between chocolate and plastic explosives. The checkpoint screeners aren't able to recognize ordinary personal items we've travelled with for years. How many knee jerk regulations have there been since 9/11 that have since been rescinded?
Random screening is, and has always been, useless in most cases.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by flowerchild:
I don't feel safer, just more hassled. While I agree checked bags should be screened for explosives, the current system is a waste of money until someone can figure out a way to tell the difference between chocolate and plastic explosives. The checkpoint screeners aren't able to recognize ordinary personal items we've travelled with for years. How many knee jerk regulations have there been since 9/11 that have since been rescinded?
Random screening is, and has always been, useless in most cases. </font>
Experience that you are talking about only comes with additional training and time on the job.

Give me scissors, or give me death !!

Give me librium or give me meth? I though you guys had to pass a drug test??? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/confused.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Give me scissors, or give me death !!</font>



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Give me scissors, or give me death !!</font>

Do we really get to choose? http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/smile.gif

Bruce