However, thanks to the TSA we now know that the screening starts at the point the items are placed on the conveyor belt and/or the point at which you go through the WTMD.

Leaving the line prior to that should not be a problem as the serch has not yet started.

You work at MSP now?

Nope. But twist it however you want - if you really want to assume only one airport was briefed by HQ today, go ahead.

So you are saying you were briefed by HQ today.

No I was being scarstic. No one was briefed. Most at TSA didn't even know it happened.

We might recieve an email/notice later, but as of today, nothing.

Ah, fair enough. Thanks for answering that. Doesn't mean I have to like or agree with it. :) But I'll accept it.

Pondering "innocent until proven guilty", it seems like a weak argument for probable cause - a mere step away from "I can tell if someone is guilty just by looking at them" just because someone wants to leave a checkpoint. If the subject returns and the screening process is sufficient, it wouldn't matter. I took note the process caught drugs, not a terrorist -the TSAs objective.

Once again, it was nice to read that in print.

I haven't had a chance to read the entire thread as I've been traveling - have any new posters shown up to criticize how this discussion is somehow placing them or our nation at risk yet?

This is interesting - I once went to battle with a DCA manager who just about went haywire when I started quoting items from the SOP (back when shoe sole thickness mattered). Now we can all read back specific passages from the TSA's little bible - SSI and all - and it's all out there on the Internet. Leave it to the TSA to lose control of their own *cough* secure intellectual property.

Re the Publix sub - ask the maker to pull out the bread from the inside after slicing to make the roll hollow, and it reduces the carb and calories by a landslide.

No, you didn't.

You wrote:
I responded:
Your entire response read:
You never said what crime the police officer would be accusing the passenger of having committed when your TSA bullying proves insufficient and you call in the airport police to do some more authoritative bullying, and the police officer threatens the person with arrest for emphasis. Arresting on what grounds? It's not illegal to refuse to comply with a TSA bag examiner's search.

I don't doubt that a cop simply asking, for instance, "do you want to be arrested?" convinces many people to give up their rights and comply with just about anything, because many people nowadays are ignorant of their rights and act as if we live in a police state. But I want to know if you think that in a cases such as those to which you referred, this is an empty threat, if there's actually a crime about to be committed (and thus sensible for the cop to say, "if you ____ then I will arrest you and charge you with ____"), or if you think the officer would likely just use one of the the catch-all, "refusing to kiss the feet of a police officer" charges like "obstruction".

I don't think they're ever required to arrest anyone, so I'm not sure what you meant by "occasions they have had to arrest a pax". You described a situation in which you'd summon a police officer for assistance, and you said that you think in some cases, that officer would threaten the person you were trying to search with arrest. I want to know what you think the reasoning behind that threat would be, and what, if any, suspicion of wrongdoing would likely have led to it.

What would that probable cause be? What wrongdoing would the cop suspect the person of having committed that would justify a warrantless search of his belongings?

DO you really think some of those countries Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen or Algeria will be result to be denied entry into USA. Because this is prohibited some of few countries are not allowed to entry into USA. Its does not have any legalized rights to become USA citizen. It cannot to be proved from Immigrations will forced to kick them out of USA. It will sent it back where its belongs there in the another countries. If you seen any common problems from another countries are not permitted to entry into American and they will eventually to force to sent it back in the home country. It could be violations any rights to denying entry into USA with visa waivers. It will be automatically to sent the passengers right way back on the aircraft without any incident.

SUPER SSI
 

SATTSO:

PLEASE spare us the tired "that SOP is outdated." Document was implemented on June 30, 2008...not much changes in 17 months for airport screening. The TSA should promote you after they stole and used your mantra for their response to U.S. News & World Report.

EVERYONE should find very disturbing the Explosives Trace Detection information blasted around the planet. The 40/40/20 blurb...HOLY CRAP!

A question begs to be asked, why is the TSA redacting portions of a document ALREADY ENTIRELY labeled SSI???

Has the TSA pulled out of its arss a new bogus "hiding embarrassing information" label called "SUPER SSI?"

This story is growing legs...

Up on a local Fox website:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/tsa-...nternet-120709

They placed two versions on the commerce website. One was improperly placed with the SSI claim intact. The other document had the SSI claim removed.

In reality they had two screw ups on this document.

Same document?

At the rate things are going the original crayola sketches of the TSA organizational flow chart are likely to show up on the internet any day now. Has anyone looked in the juvenile section, lately? :rolleyes:

What was lost in my thinking about this whole debacle was the incongruity of the TSA claiming this incident wasn't a big deal because they posted an obsolete unredacted SOP. Since this was a solicitation to private industry for goods & services, one would think that the agency doing the acquisition would give the potential bidders all the information necessary to ensure the bidders understood the RFP and ensure that the government got what they paid for. For a procurement action, giving a contractor a key reference document which is obsolete makes no sense.

So, either the TSA acquisition executive is an incompetent fool or the TSA spokeshole is lying -- or both.