I am one of those very frequent flyers who generally stays away from this forum because I dislike the amount of bashing that goes on here.
I respect the TSA even while disagreeing with certain policies. Some of the most frequent posters here appear to have no respect for authority; I think we should respect those in authority even while working to change aspects of the system we disagree with.
Define "respect".
And there is a large difference between respecting authority and respecting those in authority.
This guy was not "looking to cause a situation". All he was doing was returning home after a business trip. Had TSA conducted a proper screening he would have been on his way without incident.
And that’s an interesting opinion as well. Either of us could be right, and either of us could be wrong. From what I heard in that recording, he was looking for trouble, and he found it.
Quote:
I listened to the complete recording as soon as it became available. I heard nothing that would cause me to think the tape has been manipulated.
And I think otherwise. Hmm, impasse. Can we agree to disagree BD?
Quote:
Looks like another attempt to deflect blame away from TSA when it is quiet obvious that TSA created the very reasons why such improper screenings are possible.
Looking for and questioning things that present no danger to aviation is the root problem and is specifically what caused this situation. The passenger is not responsible for that, TSA is!
TSA? Maybe. The screener? No. He is responsible for his own actions, he followed procedure and did his job. What he said was what was out of bounds, not his actions.
And that’s an interesting opinion as well. Either of us could be right, and either of us could be wrong. From what I heard in that recording, he was looking for trouble, and he found it.
And I think otherwise. Hmm, impasse. Can we agree to disagree BD?
TSA? Maybe. The screener? No. He is responsible for his own actions, he followed procedure and did his job. What he said was what was out of bounds, not his actions.
His actions were out of bounds too and that will be proven in court. Care to take a bet on it?
Ok Ron, I will bite. Where in the recordings do you think they may have been spliced or edited in any way? Find a link to the recordings that you like and then tell me, by the minute/second marker where the edits are.
I promise I will listen to the recordings with the ear of a conspiracy nut. Were there 2 shots or 3?
TSA? Maybe. The screener? No. He is responsible for his own actions, he followed procedure and did his job. What he said was what was out of bounds, not his actions.
So the screeners procedures calls for the interrogation and harassment of a traveler after any suspicious items have been determined not to be a threat to aviation.
TSA? Maybe. The screener? No. He is responsible for his own actions, he followed procedure and did his job. What he said was what was out of bounds, not his actions.
Actions and words are two separate things?
As mentioned earlier, the Fofana ruling is going to make this a tough road for the TSA to climb on this one.
__________________
Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive.
I respect the TSA even while disagreeing with certain policies. Some of the most frequent posters here appear to have no respect for authority; I think we should respect those in authority even while working to change aspects of the system we disagree with.
You couldn't be more incorrect in suggesting that some of us who bash TSA do so because we have no respect for authority.
It is because of my job - where I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States - that I am keenly interested in stopping those that would abuse their authority, when acting under the color of law. TSA was a mistake when it was created, and continues be a mistake in the manner in which it operates.
To the extent that we are safer today when we board an airplane than we were before 9/11, very little of this improvement can be attributed to TSA. What benefit they have contributed is far outweighed by the trampling of civil liberties their processes and procedures have fostered.
TSA can point to one measure of success. Before 9/11, the federal employee most Americans would least like to encounter was an IRS agent. Now, it is the line TSO agent.
Programs: UA-1k, HH Silver, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & now a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 10,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSORon
And that’s an interesting opinion as well. Either of us could be right, and either of us could be wrong. From what I heard in that recording, he was looking for trouble, and he found it.
And I think otherwise. Hmm, impasse. Can we agree to disagree BD?
TSA? Maybe. The screener? No. He is responsible for his own actions, he followed procedure and did his job. What he said was what was out of bounds, not his actions.
yes the words spoken by the tso were, as you put it, "out of bounds" but imho, so were the actions (and yes, we agree to disagree ).
let me ask you this....
in the course of your job, is there a part of your job description or sop that requires one to treat all pax with respect and dignity? the reason i ask is that it is both actions and words are inter-related and go hand in hand.
in other words, a code of conduct. every company and organization i have worked for in my 30+ year career has had one and it applies not only to how one acts towards co-workers but if in a service industry, how one acts towards their customer/client.
i'm sure there is and that it cannot be ssi but just in case, let me toss these goodies out...
i'm not saying one has to do their job "with a smile plastered on their face" everyday as sh*t, we all have bad days, right? but we all need to at least go thru the motions of being polite as that is part of the job and in the case at hand, the tso did not do that.
__________________
just my humble opinion but i used to try and stop hockey pucks so what do i know . Nighthawks fans are everywhere
yes the words spoken by the tso were, as you put it, "out of bounds" but imho, so were the actions (and yes, we agree to disagree ).
let me ask you this....
in the course of your job, is there a part of your job description or sop that requires one to treat all pax with respect and dignity? the reason i ask is that it is both actions and words are inter-related and go hand in hand.
in other words, a code of conduct. every company and organization i have worked for in my 30+ year career has had one and it applies not only to how one acts towards co-workers but if in a service industry, how one acts towards their customer/client.
i'm sure there is and that it cannot be ssi but just in case, let me toss these goodies out...
i'm not saying one has to do their job "with a smile plastered on their face" everyday as sh*t, we all have bad days, right? but we all need to at least go thru the motions of being polite as that is part of the job and in the case at hand, the tso did not do that.
TSOs have only one chance to get it right with each and every passenger. Sadly they often fail when treating passengers as unindicted terrorists/criminals.
TSOs have only one chance to get it right with each and every passenger. Sadly they often fail when treating passengers as unindicted terrorists/criminals.
And therein lies the problem.
Of all the people who travel I suspect that the number that present any real threat to aviation is close to nil.
TSA should recognize this and instead of treating everyone as a criminal should think everyone is just a traveler while being on the lookout for than 1 in 73,000,000 (or less) potential terrorist who might travel in any given year.
If the BDO program is so effective as TSA claims then beef up that area and stop the insane dragnet checkpoints.
Look for WEI and other prohibited items and get over that someone might have something that might be illegal in other circumstances.
Programs: UA-1k, HH Silver, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & now a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 10,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryMiller
TSOs have only one chance to get it right with each and every passenger. Sadly they often fail when treating passengers as unindicted terrorists/criminals.
wait a minute!!!!
d-d-d-d-do you mean to say that we are not un-indicted terrorists/criminals when we fly.....
__________________
just my humble opinion but i used to try and stop hockey pucks so what do i know . Nighthawks fans are everywhere
And that’s an interesting opinion as well. Either of us could be right, and either of us could be wrong. From what I heard in that recording, he was looking for trouble, and he found it.
1) If you think there are holes in the recording, let us know where you think they are; otherwise, abandon that claim. Be specific. In other words, put up or shut up.
2) The court ruling in Fofana is pretty clear-- we will have to wait for 6th Circuit to weigh in since the USA will likely appeal (unless they are afraid of the result and don't want an appellate record!)
3) Once law enforcement is called, is it SOP for the TSO to hang around and participate in the interrogation? This is a real question.
we will have to wait for 6th Circuit to weigh in since the USA will likely appeal (unless they are afraid of the result and don't want an appellate record!)
In case you missed it in that thread: Fofanahas been appealed: on June 4, two days after the ruling.
Last edited by RichardKenner; Jun 27, 09 at 6:38 pm.
Reason: clarify which case is being talked about
So the screeners procedures calls for the interrogation and harassment of a traveler after any suspicious items have been determined not to be a threat to aviation.
That going to depend on just how far you are willing to stretch the meaning of the terms you are using.
Asking a question is not harassment, period. Asking a question "may" be considered to be interrogation, but only if one chooses to think of it as such. Answering a question with a question is evasion, and can be considered to be refusal to answer, if one chooses to think of it that way. Given that, yes I’d say he was looking to make a problem, looking for trouble.
Procedure requires us to report large amounts of currency to a supervisor. From what I have read and what I heard on the tape the TSO followed procedure, until such time as he became angry with the passenger. The language he used towards the passenger was inappropriate and actionable within the disciplinary processes of the TSA. The procedure of involving law enforcement was followed correctly. Now, what the law enforcement folks did may or may not have been within their procedures, I can’t say as I am not a member of that particular department, and neither are you.
).
. Nighthawks fans are everywhere
