Suspicious behavior can be a cover-all for some agencies to include several misdemeanor activities (to save on space). I am NOT saying that this is necessarily the case for TSA, but it could be.

The first amendment applies everywhere unless detailed specifically by the laws of our nation. You are entitled to speak your mind wherever you go in our borders, if the TSO actually said that, they were wrong.

Any TSO (or TSA employee) caught stealing anything from anywhere (regardless of whether they sell it on Ebay or keep it at home), should be prosecuted under the local laws, period.

I am quite certain that we would agree on many things, we would just have to find the common ground to work from, and beer makes many people agree on many things! Have you tried the Sam Adams Double Bock yet? It took me back to my days in Germany! If you are ever here, let me know and maybe we can find a place for a beer and agree on more things.

Good to hear you feel that way. Too bad the US Department of Justice felt differently and directed the State of Texas to drop charges against a DAL TSA supervisor assaulting a screener. Is that the "equal under law" the TSA has in mind?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.427ee4f.html

Oh and perhaps you forgot to comment on Alvin Crabtree still working at DEN after violating a sundry of TSA & state of Colorado laws.

I believe exactly what I stated earlier, anyone that steals should be prosecuted the same as anyone else. I don't know the background on that particular case for the DAL STSO, however if the STSO assaulted the TSO, then there should have been charges (unless the TSO refused to press charges). I refuse to speak on Alvin because I am woefully ignorant on the full situation. I tend to not speak on things (unless it is hypothetical) unless I have all sides and statements to cull from. I find that it makes me sound much smarter and keeps me from inserting my foot in my mouth (which I need absolutely no help with according to the woman).

Glad you feel that way. Such a sad situation that federal security directors do not feel the same.

As I said, how supervisors behave with passengers is always a good indicator of what will get done with complaints.

Nothing wrong with those words, and there ain't nothing wrong with "ustacould", "fixinto", and "gitonouttahere".

Let's make it clear, he may lose his vote, and you may lose your life if passengers aren't screened properly!
You seem very complexed about something! What's up mate?!

(sorry wouldn't usualy give such a sharp response, but with the tone this bloke is using, I'd consider it quite moderate)

You are absolutely correct, I may lose my life if people are not PROPERLY screened. The WBI is NOT a good way to properly screen anyone. The WBI would not have caught the Undie-bomber and neither would a standard pat-down, but a K-9 would have.

Take a trip to my blog where I list 4 ways to beat the Nude-O-Scope. If I can easily beat the system, the terrorists can beat the system.

But what has "complexed" me is the fact that Lieberman or any other "leader" would push such an invasion in privacy when the costs are high and the benefits are negligible.

Oh yes, if we don't have these intrusive means, many thousands more people will die! :rolleyes: Let's not even consider the 700 million people that flew in/to/from the US a year and how many of them died from terror attacks. More people die from pilot error and mechanical failure than have ever died in planes from terrorist attacks.

The sky's not falling. Whether these things are implemented or not, I'm in greater danger of dying on the way to my friend's house in a few minutes to watch a football game than I am if I were to get on a plane.

There are less intrusive ways of screening. TSA just doesn't want to do it. There are a lot of things that TSA should be doing that they're not - screening workers and screeners regularly, screening cargo, securing baggage, etc. Screeeners can't even find stuff now with the technology that they do have capable of finding items (like the immense failure of EWR screening - and even with advanced warning). Let's focus on those areas that already have gaping holes before going into a panic and fixing something that's already reasonably secure.

there's an easy explanation. No one in a position of authority wants to be accused of being soft on terrorism. Thus, when the "experts" say "our problems will be solved if we buy 1000 nude-o-scopes" and there are no voices in opposition to the "experts" - because the press are spineless weenies - the "leaders" follow the advice of the "experts."

Disgusting, but that's the way it is.

No, they should be charged and prosecuted under federal law.

That's the way it is. Welcome to politics in the age of the spineless. A real leader will tell the public what it doesn't want to hear. Chill out and take a breather since terrorism has been, is and will remain a public, ugly nuisance and we'll have to expect to live with the risks of it like we do with road accidents. The best bomb makers are still going to be able to sneak explosives by whatever security measures are put in place. There's no getting around that absent an impossible, totalitarian police state. Expect mitigation of the risk but don't expect it to ever be eliminated.

You forgot "Youauntoo" and "Aight".

True, depending on location that is true.

I think the goal should be no ability for the terrorists (or some other loony) to be able to do damage to the people aboard a flight or in the airport. I admit that is something that will probably never be acheived for one simple reason - people adapt. We all do it in some forms throughout our lives, we adapt to what life throws at us and we keep moving forward. The problem we have here is the balance between what is acceptable to the public and what the threats are. There are several people that want more stringent protocols for security (you know, the FBPD with the full monty, WBI, open every bag and rifle through it and test it, and anything else they can think of to keep stuff out of the planes), and the other group that wants basic protocols (xray of the bags, test what looks like it could be a threat and pat down only as an alternative to the WTMD). I would venture that most of the American public is somewhere in between those two ends of the spectrum. The trick is to find the best ways to prevent the threats, while keeping in line with what the country feels is socially acceptable levels of security. My idea of security would make most of you pull your hair out (but then again, I worked at a Nuclear weapons storage facility so what do I know?:D). I have a cousin that thinks we should just issue everyone on the plane a gun with 3 bullets in them and let it go from there. I have a friend that thinks we should just xray the bags and do the WTMD (with a handwand if there is an alarm) and call it even - no ETD or anything. I hope that moving forward, we as an agency cn find the ability to prevent as many opportunities for loonies to do damage with a good balance of security and inconvienience (corr, sp? my eyes are loopy tonite). I love the Israeli security system, because of the tiered effect, you are processed through in steps, each one more stringent than the last, all the while being scrutinized for errant behaviors. Will the Israeli model work here? I am not so certain that people would accept it here, it is by nature much more intense than ours here. I just hope we can find a good balance and do the best job of prevention that we can, with what we are given.:)

Welcome to Flyertalk. :)

In my view, the TSA and its employees are the real al Qaeda assistants, having helped that organization achieve its goals ever since the TSA was formed. They don't call it Terrorist Support Agency for nothing, you know.

Simply put, that goal is impossible to achieve. Any terrorist organization, given enough time, money, and people, can do damage to any particular flight or airport. Even I, with very little training, can come up with unbeatable scenarios.

It's the same way with my car. Yes, I've got a security system on it. That won't stop someone from stealing it if they're determined enough. Heck, all they've got to do is get a tow truck and they can steal the whole thing. But since most thieves don't have tow trucks, all I'm trying to do is discourage the guy who wants to break into my car enough so that he decides that the risk of detection isn't worth the effort.

That's what airline security should be trying to achieve. Absolute security is a myth. The question really should be: what levels of security are possible, at what cost (both in terms of restriction of liberties as well as money spent)? And then we can have a rational discussion as to whether the benefits of a given level of security justify the cost --- and reasonable people can hold different positions on those questions.