Sorry, Bart. Nos. 1 and 2 are correct. 3 is not. Credibility doesn't mandate objectivity or neutrality. It only mandates accuracy and knowledge.

Think about this: FT has as its primary membership frequent fliers -- people who have to interact with TSA on a frequent basis. Most of the criticism of TSA comes from frequent fliers and those members of the media who are, themselves, frequent fliers. Most of the support for TSA comes from casual fliers -- those who fly once or twice a year, are terrified of becoming a 9/11 statistic, and are incapable of critically evaluating TSA's methods and procedures.

You see it from TSA's side. We see it from the frequent fliers' side. We are both "credible," with respect to our experience of the interaction. It does not mean that you are automatically wrong, but it also means that we are not, either.

I would add, as well, that with respect to constitutional jurisprudence, it is the rare non-lawyer who has any credibility and TSORon has proven the validity of this generalization.

Now, perhaps you can answer a question that I've put to TSORon, but he has simply evaded answering:

"How can TSA claim that commercial passenger planes are "secure" when each and every one of them in the U.S. has uninspected cargo and uninspected U.S. mail loaded into it?"