There is a simple reason for the conflicting thoughts on this issue. Long post, my apologies.

Theoretically, it makes logical sense to identify those passengers that present limited or no risk to transportation security. Once identified, those passengers would be issued credentials that when presented at the checkpoint would allow them to proceed with minimal inconvenience and without the intrusive search and examination that is now applied to every passenger. The application for the credentials would be voluntary and any passenger applying and subsequently not qualifying would be told of the reason for the rejection and be granted opportunities to correct or clarify the discrepancies.

Those that have not pre-qualified would present themselves for screening as they do now with no changes.

Once again, in theory, this would remove a significant group of passengers from the detailed screening, making the overall process faster and more efficient. It would do nothing to address the constitutional concerns or the concerns of safety. It would just reduce the number of passengers subject to the complete screening.

By nature of my NEXUS status, I would think that I would likely qualify for this program, and I would probably apply based on the theoretical benefits.

It is not the theoretical that concerns me. It is the application.

The TSA has shown an inability to apply their own procedures consistently and appropriately. The have engaged in retributive screenings for insults and simply questioning the process. The disallow photography where is has been stated that it is specifically allowed. For a long time, they did not recognize the credentials of the existing trusted traveler programs, but this has been getting betting from my experience. They randomly require passengers to submit to procedures or answer questions that are not documented as necessary or even possible on the web site that describes what is expected of the passenger at the checkpoint. The intrusiveness of the screening varies from airport to airport and even from checkpoint to check point withing the airport. They insist on applying questionable practices such as Code Bravo, gate checks, magic strip liquid checks, "say your name," and "spell you name." The are secretive in nature in that the procedures to which we must submit can not be disclosed.

I will grant that the number of times where the process is consistent and reasonable outnumber the failures but the failures still exist, and in much greater number that would be expected in an organization that has a culture of quality and accountability. It is a structural failure and a managerial failure. More than those it is a failure of the philosophical nature of the process.

If this were implemented, over time the attitude of the organization could easily become one of if one can not qualify as a trusted traveler, then there certainly must be something wrong with them and we better give them a closer look. In other words, it would give even greater credence to the "everyone is a terrorist until we say otherwise" mentality. The only way this could be prevented is with active and continuous training and reinforcement. That does not happen consistently now.

There are also the minority of screeners that already seem to take pleasure is giving extra hassles to those that travel frequently. There is anecdotal evidence that even the trusted travelers may get retaliatory treatment just because they are "trusted."

Finally, even though I would likely qualify, there is something unsettling about the process whereby we separate and classify people based on what may be arbitrary criteria. In our society, we try to avoid such discrimination even when it is done legally and logically. It would be far better to address the constitutional and safety issues for everyone, not just establish a procedure where some selected passenger my avoid them.

Bottom line: The theoretical may be good, but the TSA has consistently shown that their weakness is in consistent and proper application of even proper processes.