Originally Posted by
Boggie Dog
The other possibility is that TSA intentionally exaggerates the threat posed to commercial aviation. Got to keep that funding coming in along with growing the agency each and every year. If TSA is exaggerating the threat then again there is a need to validate the current screening requirements and having those standards applied to airport workers would help on that front.
Here's an interesting document for you from Jonathan Corbett's litigation. TSA screwed up and posted Corbett's
sealed, unredacted brief publicly. InfoWars (of all people) got a copy before they took it down, and reposted it. I've reposted the copy from them.
I've
highlighted the parts that TSA redacted. (Except p. 43/36 fn. 15, which is an image already highlighted in gray.)
Notice a trend in what they wanted to hide?
Now compare to, say,
49 USC 114(r)(4)(B)…
Originally Posted by
Boggie Dog
If we take TSA's claims that terrorist organizations are testing and probing airport security daily as true then my position is valid.
Do they in fact make such claims? Under oath? Please show me where. I'd love to impeach them.
See Corbett brief above.
What I've seen is mere
hypotheticals. There's not even a claim
to take at face value, let alone any value to that face.
If a 150 ml bottle of x is potentially harmful it doesn't matter who has it.
Yes.
IF.
I think a careful review of TSA screening requirements when applied to the operational side of airports would drastically change what TSA suddenly finds allowable. The end result would be of benefit to passengers where only WEI should be interdicted, not breast milk, soda pop, water, pudding, hand lotion, cupcakes in jars, purses with leather embossed images of pistols, body jewelry and so on.
This would also be the result of my litigation. Although it'll take years, my bet is that I'm the more likely and faster means of achieving that objective.
The other possibility is that TSA intentionally exaggerates the threat posed to commercial aviation.
