Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues
Reload this Page >

House Dem Leader Calls For Special TSA Treatment for Congress

House Dem Leader Calls For Special TSA Treatment for Congress

Old Jan 10, 2011, 5:55 am
  #46  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
Originally Posted by GUWonder

snip

Do you think there is any good reason for the TSA to know the details about passengers' sex organs -- including the size and shape of the sex organs -- whether or not an elected official? Talking about such sex organs or not isn't going to change the situation of the TSA employees getting the information they get whether or not the TSA employee have it to give or not.
I think there are several great reasons to ascertain whether a person getting on a plane has something that can be used to bring that plane down, or do great harm to those around them.

Originally Posted by GUWonder
Then you fancy it?



The government is not in the habit of fancying that such happens to its own employees domestically. Burning the bodies of foreigners is another matter.
Ok, I think at this point, i am just going to have to give you another one of these -

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Jan 12, 2011 at 2:45 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
gsoltso is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2011, 5:59 am
  #47  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by gsoltso
I think there are several great reasons to ascertain whether a person getting on a plane has something that can be used to bring that plane down, or do great harm to those around them.
And I think if the TSAs motives were that clear, the TDC referral form wouldn't have five other completely unrelated "reasons for arrest" listed on it.

It has to suck being a dupe for the so-called "war on drugs."

It has to suck even more to be too dumb to figure it out.
Caradoc is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2011, 6:02 am
  #48  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
Originally Posted by Caradoc
If my job involved lying to the public about the reasons for demanding to see them naked or groping them, I'd be ashamed of it. Very ashamed.

In fact, if my job description suddenly changed one day to include those behaviors, they'd probably fire me immediately when I refused to perform those particular actions.

The simple fact that the TSA has found so many people who're not only willing but eager to do so speaks volumes - and not in a good way.
Your point of view is different than mine, there are viable reasons for what TSA does, I have seen both sides of the story, seen the screening protocols that are in the SOP and are done here everyday, and there is no lying from my view. I disagree with things at work sometimes, have you ever had a job where you agreed with every single thing you had to do every single day? If you have, kudos and I hope it pays the bills for you and stay there as long as you can, because you are in a tiny minority.
gsoltso is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2011, 6:10 am
  #49  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by gsoltso
Your point of view is different than mine, there are viable reasons for what TSA does, I have seen both sides of the story, seen the screening protocols that are in the SOP and are done here everyday, and there is no lying from my view.
You have the overwhelming advantage of having seen the SOP, which is forbidden to us - the passengers - who're expected to follow the TSOs utterly nonsensical orders without question under threat of arrest and/or fines while being barked at for not knowing today's procedure because we're not allowed to know it.

Add that to the simple fact that there are entire airports with 70%-100% failure rates of detecting the Red Team tests, and the SOP becomes utterly meaningless except as a sideshow attempt to "prove" to the American public that the federal government is here to "protect" them while revealing that the entire program is utterly incapable of doing so.

Claiming "success" at detecting "dangerous objects" for confiscating pocketknives and embroidery scissors is ridiculous. The passengers will not allow someone to attempt a hijacking with a mere knife ever again.

Claiming "success" at detecting "contraband" and turning people over to LEOs for a mere joint, or even a "pipe" with zero residue is even more ridiculous.

I've quit two jobs in the past ten years because of policies I didn't like. I just changed jobs to insure I don't have to travel any more, too.

If you've genuinely complained to your management about procedures you found objectionable, then you have my apologies and my sincere condolences for being unqualified for any other line of work - or you'd already be in it by now, wouldn't you?
Caradoc is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2011, 6:18 am
  #50  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 855
What bugs me about the Tucson murders is that the perpetrator hasn't been charged for murdering the child or the two retirees yet, nor assaults against the 13 other people who were merely wounded. I read this in a blog, and thought that surely this was nonsense. Then I checked various news sites. I find no mention of murder charges or charges stemming from assault with a deadly weapon.

"Jared Loughner faces one count of attempted assassination of a member of Congress, two counts of killing an employee of the federal government and two counts of attempting to kill a federal employee."

Giffords still clings to life. The child, the judge and the retirees are dead. I'm finding the lack of charges against Loughner for the assaults and murders to be extremely creepy, if true.

From what I've read, Laughner was and is crazy. His obsession with Grammar coupled with his inability to compose a coherent sentence speak to his literally "disordered" mind. The poor lad was nuts. In spite of this, political ideologues of all stripes have tried to tar their opponents with responsibility for Laughner's acts. On top of that, a congressman wants to use this tragedy to leverage his own escape from TSA scope n' grope checkpoints?

I'm sorry, but Laughner's insanity doesn't have anything to do with politics, although the Federal response does illustrate how little the Federal Government cares about American Citizens.

It's ordinary American Citizens who suffered the brunt of Laughner's attack. It's ordinary American citizens who are the least defended and protected by Federal Law and Federal Agencies. It's ordinary American citizens who will suffer the consequences if Laughner's acts of insanity are used to justify further civil rights abuses. It's ordinary American citizens who will be left alone to endure the current DHS/TSA civil rights abuses if Federal employees manage to use Laughner's acts of insanity to exempt themselves from airport insecurity checkpoints. (Yes, I meant insecurity.)

Enough already. Laughner attacked, maimed and murdered ordinary American citizens, and the Federal Government couldn't care less.

The Federal Government seems to have forgotten its purpose, as well as the identity of their employer.
ElizabethConley is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2011, 6:24 am
  #51  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by ElizabethConley
What bugs me about the Tucson murders is that the perpetrator hasn't been charged for murdering the child or the two retirees yet, nor assaults against the 13 other people who were merely wounded. I read this in a blog, and thought that surely this was nonsense. Then I checked various news sites. I find no mention of murder charges or charges stemming from assault with a deadly weapon.
As I understand it, they're filing certain charges in Federal court, and other charges in the state court.

Personally, I'd much rather they take whatever time they need to insure the filings are completely accurate and the case isn't tossed on a technicality.
Caradoc is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2011, 6:31 am
  #52  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 855
Originally Posted by Caradoc
As I understand it, they're filing certain charges in Federal court, and other charges in the state court.

Personally, I'd much rather they take whatever time they need to insure the filings are completely accurate and the case isn't tossed on a technicality.
I'd like to see it that way too, but gunning down 9 year old kids in a public place in front of scores of witnesses seems pretty cut and dried. It certainly can't be more complex than shooting Federal Employees.

I don't think "it's a plot". I think it's a sign the Feds are focused more on themselves than the people they purportedly serve.

Furthermore, if attacks on ordinary citizens are prosecuted by the states and attacks on Federal employees are prosecuted by the Federal government, then who protects citizens when the Federal government attacks ordinary citizens? Are we to look to the states, which are increasingly subordinate to Federal authority?

It's not "a plot". It's just bad. "It" meaning the increasing contempt our Federal government is demonstrating for the rights of U.S. citizens and our Constitution. In ways large and small, the Federal Government demonstrates a we vs they attitude - They the Government against We the People.

It's definitely time to "Vote the Bums Out" until we finally get some bums who care about our bums.

Last edited by ElizabethConley; Jan 10, 2011 at 6:44 am
ElizabethConley is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2011, 6:31 am
  #53  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Programs: BA blue, LH Senator, KQ (FB) gold
Posts: 8,215
Originally Posted by GUWonder
What a shame that, according to clips of an interview given by the Congressman to Fox, this Congressman actually does seem to have tried to link the assassination attempt upon a Congressional rep with how Congresspersons ought not to be screened by the TSA. Is he worried that the TSA is so wacko that TSA employees will try to do some more wacko things to him too? Then he should push against the TSA on behalf of all of America's passengers -- and not just Congresspersons -- who risk having their sex organs handled by the TSA.
1. The idea of using this event to avoid screening for personal convenience is nauseating.

2. So, assuming that this congressman isn't quite as revolting as that, let's go with the idea that he actually is concerned about the safety of our elected representatives in the screening line.

3. You asked facetiously whether he is worried that TSA employees would do something wacko. I think he is worried about something that many of us have been concerned about for some time - that terrorists will recognize that, rather than attack a plane which requires going through security, attack the interminable line that is wending its way to security.

4. Ergo, if the congressman isn't doing this for personal convenience, he is doing it because he doesn't want to get killed waiting for TSA clearance, but seems happy to let his constituents (and the rest of the public) get killed there. . .just as nauseating.
You want to go where? is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2011, 7:22 am
  #54  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Greensboro
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,424
Originally Posted by Caradoc
You have the overwhelming advantage of having seen the SOP, which is forbidden to us - the passengers - who're expected to follow the TSOs utterly nonsensical orders without question under threat of arrest and/or fines while being barked at for not knowing today's procedure because we're not allowed to know it.

Add that to the simple fact that there are entire airports with 70%-100% failure rates of detecting the Red Team tests, and the SOP becomes utterly meaningless except as a sideshow attempt to "prove" to the American public that the federal government is here to "protect" them while revealing that the entire program is utterly incapable of doing so.

Claiming "success" at detecting "dangerous objects" for confiscating pocketknives and embroidery scissors is ridiculous. The passengers will not allow someone to attempt a hijacking with a mere knife ever again.

Claiming "success" at detecting "contraband" and turning people over to LEOs for a mere joint, or even a "pipe" with zero residue is even more ridiculous.

I've quit two jobs in the past ten years because of policies I didn't like. I just changed jobs to insure I don't have to travel any more, too.

If you've genuinely complained to your management about procedures you found objectionable, then you have my apologies and my sincere condolences for being unqualified for any other line of work - or you'd already be in it by now, wouldn't you?
I agree that I have that advantage, and in some cases I disagree with what is considered SSI and what is not - but I don't make the rules. Claiming success at finding things that are listed as prohibited items is just fine, many companies post information about what they find wrong, or right and fix, in this case, it is simply something they post to let the public know that we are - in fact - finding dangerous and prohibited items.

I am glad that you have changed employment over policies you didn't like, many folks just do not give up that easy, hold the same convictions you do, or prefer to work and change things for the better rather than letting things go on. I prefer to work on what I can make better and move forward - if things get to a point where I am at an impasse with the rules, then I will go somewhere else as well.

Please do not presume to speak for me, I have plenty of job skills that have nothing to do with my current employment so I am quite happy with my place in life.
gsoltso is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2011, 7:25 am
  #55  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Originally Posted by gsoltso
Please do not presume to speak for me, I have plenty of job skills that have nothing to do with my current employment so I am quite happy with my place in life.
I never spoke for you.

You've already told us all everything we need to know to judge what sort of person you really are, deep down inside.
Caradoc is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2011, 7:45 am
  #56  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 449
Originally Posted by ElizabethConley
I'd like to see it that way too, but gunning down 9 year old kids in a public place in front of scores of witnesses seems pretty cut and dried. It certainly can't be more complex than shooting Federal Employees.
Murder is generally a state law crime, not a federal crime. The feds can't bring charges for it. Do you want the feds to pass more laws and take over criminal prosecutions from the states?
Ellie M is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2011, 7:50 am
  #57  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by ElizabethConley
What bugs me about the Tucson murders is that the perpetrator hasn't been charged for murdering the child or the two retirees yet, nor assaults against the 13 other people who were merely wounded. I read this in a blog, and thought that surely this was nonsense. Then I checked various news sites. I find no mention of murder charges or charges stemming from assault with a deadly weapon.

"Jared Loughner faces one count of attempted assassination of a member of Congress, two counts of killing an employee of the federal government and two counts of attempting to kill a federal employee."

Giffords still clings to life. The child, the judge and the retirees are dead. I'm finding the lack of charges against Loughner for the assaults and murders to be extremely creepy, if true.

From what I've read, Laughner was and is crazy. His obsession with Grammar coupled with his inability to compose a coherent sentence speak to his literally "disordered" mind. The poor lad was nuts. In spite of this, political ideologues of all stripes have tried to tar their opponents with responsibility for Laughner's acts. On top of that, a congressman wants to use this tragedy to leverage his own escape from TSA scope n' grope checkpoints?

I'm sorry, but Laughner's insanity doesn't have anything to do with politics, although the Federal response does illustrate how little the Federal Government cares about American Citizens.

It's ordinary American Citizens who suffered the brunt of Laughner's attack. It's ordinary American citizens who are the least defended and protected by Federal Law and Federal Agencies. It's ordinary American citizens who will suffer the consequences if Laughner's acts of insanity are used to justify further civil rights abuses. It's ordinary American citizens who will be left alone to endure the current DHS/TSA civil rights abuses if Federal employees manage to use Laughner's acts of insanity to exempt themselves from airport insecurity checkpoints. (Yes, I meant insecurity.)

Enough already. Laughner attacked, maimed and murdered ordinary American citizens, and the Federal Government couldn't care less.

The Federal Government seems to have forgotten its purpose, as well as the identity of their employer.
It sounds like people are being whipped up into a frenzy on the basis of ignorance of why things have developed in this sort of way so far.

The federal government is responsible for pursuing violations of federal law. The state/local government's prosecutors are responsible for pursuing violations of state/local law. The federal prosecutors are just faster at getting on the federal law ball in this regard than the DAs are at getting on the state law ball. It's up to the Arizona DA(s) to get in on the action in their own to pursue charges that the federal government is not in an ideal position to pursue.

The federal government doesn't need more excuses to create more laws and take more power than is already the case, but if people keep getting whipped into frenzy for no good reason, we'll get more TSA-style nonsense at the state/local levels too than is already the case.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2011, 8:00 am
  #58  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 855
Originally Posted by Ellie M
Murder is generally a state law crime, not a federal crime. The feds can't bring charges for it. Do you want the feds to pass more laws and take over criminal prosecutions from the states?

No. I want equal protection under the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

What I'm seeing here is "Some pigs are more equal than others".

The Federal government protects it's employees and it's interests, even to the detriment of ordinary citizens, while erroding the States' ability to protect themselves and their citizens from the Federal government.

When the 14th Amendment was written, I don't think the founders thought the Federal Government would be menacing citizens, and the States would be helpless to protect us.

The Federal Government's power grabs are beginning to render the 14th Amendment moot.
ElizabethConley is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2011, 8:02 am
  #59  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by You want to go where?
1. The idea of using this event to avoid screening for personal convenience is nauseating.

2. So, assuming that this congressman isn't quite as revolting as that, let's go with the idea that he actually is concerned about the safety of our elected representatives in the screening line.

3. You asked facetiously whether he is worried that TSA employees would do something wacko. I think he is worried about something that many of us have been concerned about for some time - that terrorists will recognize that, rather than attack a plane which requires going through security, attack the interminable line that is wending its way to security.

4. Ergo, if the congressman isn't doing this for personal convenience, he is doing it because he doesn't want to get killed waiting for TSA clearance, but seems happy to let his constituents (and the rest of the public) get killed there. . .just as nauseating.
There seems to be no other way to skin this cat than be ashamed of this member of Congress's statements in this matter.

From what I've been hearing, it seems like a lot of members of Congress are worried about being exposed to threats at public events and public facilities -- including airports -- but don't want to come out in public and claim they are scared and want to be treated even more specially than is already the case.

The lot of them, cowards -- politically or otherwise. We've gotten the politicians and politics we deserve.

Originally Posted by ElizabethConley
No. I want equal protection under the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

What I'm seeing here is "Some pigs are more equal than others".

The Federal government protects it's employees and it's interests, even to the detriment of ordinary citizens, while erroding the States' ability to protect themselves and their citizens from the Federal government.

When the 14th Amendment was written, I don't think the founders thought the Federal Government would be menacing citizens, and the States would be helpless to protect us.

The Federal Government's power grabs are beginning to render the 14th Amendment moot.
There has to be a nexus with federal law violations for federal law to apply and federal charges to be pursued with a basis. Welcome to the results of a US Constitution that created a federal, liberal republic that leaves some matters to the states (and to the people) and out of the hands of the federal government. The arrested suspect in AZ will get the justice he is due, including at the state level. The federal government is not needed to meddle in every criminal matter that the state is well-positioned to pursue.

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Jan 12, 2011 at 2:46 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
GUWonder is offline  
Old Jan 10, 2011, 8:15 am
  #60  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 449
Originally Posted by ElizabethConley
No. I want equal protection under the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

What I'm seeing here is "Some pigs are more equal than others".

The Federal government protects it's employees and it's interests, even to the detriment of ordinary citizens, while erroding the States' ability to protect themselves and their citizens from the Federal government.

When the 14th Amendment was written, I don't think the founders thought the Federal Government would be menacing citizens, and the States would be helpless to protect us.

The Federal Government's power grabs are beginning to render the 14th Amendment moot.
There are plenty of things to be angry at the federal government for. This isn't it. This is just ill informed.

The federal government has no authority to prosecute people for state crimes. That is the state government's job. I can't imagine the state of Arizona will not be prosecuting Loughner. The fact that Arizona hasn't formally pressed charges two days after the rampage, while the initial investigation is still ongoing does not suggest in any way that Loughner will go unpunished. If anything it means that state officials are being careful.

The only power grab would be if the federal government decided to take over the prosecution of state crimes from Arizona. It would also be unconstitutional.




+1 on what GUWonder wrote.
Ellie M is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.