Ahh... So that's TSA's problem...

"Confundus!", followed by walking into the "sterile" area and chanting "Impervius!" didn't work...

And some MIA TSOs suffering from "Reducio"...

Was that necessary? Should I be �dumbing� down the verbiage for you every time I post something, or is it that the inappropriate comment provides you with a feeling of self-satisfaction that you cannot get by providing an answer that does not include a personal attack? Please, try not to let your sense of outrage at a question you were not prepared for override what good sense you may possess.

As you point out so clearly further down in this very post, what takes place outside of the checkpoint is not TSA�s business. Not that the assumption is correct, or even close to accurate, but you seem to want things your own way rather than something � rational.

So, which is it? Should the TSA be concerned with things away from the checkpoint or should it not? Please make up your mind, all this waffling is getting me a bit nauseated.

You noticed! Congratulations. Security is an evolving field, and those agencies that remain stagnant or refuse to evolve with the need become irrelevant.

No doubt. They were doing their job. Now the question is, do you know what it is they were doing? I�d give you a hint but I suspect that your �credentials� would get in the way.

Wow, that�s two is a row. Yes, �Enhanced Screening� is a pretty vague term and could mean almost anything. Would you rather we pass out pamphlets explaining what we are doing in detail, and why?

�original mission�. Hmmm, well now, since you don�t seem to know much about what that �original mission� was or how relevant it may be to the current mission of the TSA, I find it funny that you would even reference it. Security is an evolving field, and those agencies that remain stagnant or refuse to evolve with the need become irrelevant.

I love how that story continues to morph. Keep it up, the progression is interesting to observe.

Oh, quite. You would be amazed at the information I can draw from a point of view, even one as simple as yours.

Was that necessary? Is it that the inappropriate comment provides you with a feeling of self-satisfaction that you cannot get by providing an answer that does not include a personal attack? Please, try not to let your sense of outrage at a question you were not prepared for override what good sense you may possess.

They are more than welcome to throw their items out if they like, anytime before they bring it to the checkpoint. As for what happens once it is found AT the checkpoint, well let me ask YOU a question. YOU see someone setting a car on fire, do you call the fire department, try to put it out yourself, or walk away as it is none of your business?

Where is the difference between the situations? Why?

Lol, just where outside of a screening area is a TSO going to find a package of suspected drugs?

LOL, good to know that you as capable of making an innocent mistake as the rest of us. I was beginning to worry about you Tom, all that �stuff� getting in the way of a reasonable discussion. Now that you have that out of the way maybe we could discuss things.

It� ironic that you make such a request when it�s obvious that you don�t really know much about the subject. �Lol, just where outside of a screening area is a TSO going to find a package of suspected drugs?� I don�t suppose you can answer that question, can you?

Two security screeners at Newark Liberty International Airport were charged with official misconduct today, after officials said a surveillance video captured them throwing a bag of marijuana they had found on the terminal floor into the trash.

So when you find potentially dangerous liquids at the checkpoint, why do you allow passengers to simply throw the items away?

Why, when you see a container full of potentially dangerous liquids do you say "well, it's not in the sterile area, so it is not my job", as if it none of your business?

Did you miss this thread? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...mon-sense.html

Well, let's see, you took the time to respond to that dumbed-down verbiage. The effort was made inhopes that you would understand.

Thus, you understood what I said, or you don't know what you are talking about. Again.



Then why does the TSA "patrol" those areas?



Then you might want to consider changing your diet.

I have said for quite awhile that the TSA needs to master what is supposed to be its core competency, that being detecting prohibited items at the checkpoint. You have not, you know the answer to that already.


If security is an "evolving field," then why have you had more uniform changes than updates to the x-ray machines you use?


Are you serious?

Let me quote YOU, from earlier in your reply....
Wow. it's one thing to change like the wind, but it's amazing to change your position in the same post. But manage to do that.....congratulations.


Yes, it can mean almost anything. But when it comes to the TSA, it doesn't mean "better."


Again, with the exception of a handful of machines in a handful of locations, the TSA has not purchased new x-ray machines, despite consistent failures in detecting items the GAO has passed under your nose.

Even the leaked SOP says that the x-ray machines you use cannot detect certain gauges of wires.

So tell us, how has the TSA "evolved?" since its ineption? Er, I mean inception?


Instead of "observing," why don't you answer the question about your $10k assertion?


I'm glad my dumbing down the language registered for you.

snip irrelevant (but mostly incomprehensible responses)

From Ron to me

If your going to make an ignorant statement, you might want to take the time.[...to check out the legality...]

//Please try and take the time to at least punctuate properly before you make an implied statement about the legality of freedom of speech. Yep, I can say really stupid things (like you sometimes do), and they're still protected. Read up a bit on U.S. history, etc. Not only am I permitted to make dumb statements (but rarely do), but so are you. I was actually reserving judgment on your overall level of foolishness until you made the above statement.//

If you want to represent your agency well, go back to school and finish up some English classes. Seriously, several people here have mentioned it to you and you don't seem to get it. Public relations does matter, and if I were part of the TSA, I'd be highly sensitive to my employees posting on public forums in the manner you've adopted as your style.

Do you really actually work for them?

[QUOTE=LuvsParis;13952636]snip irrelevant (but mostly incomprehensible responses)

From Ron to me

If your going to make an ignorant statement, you might want to take the time.[...to check out the legality...]

//Please try and take the time to at least punctuate properly before you make an implied statement about the legality of freedom of speech. Yep, I can say really stupid things (like you sometimes do), and they're still protected. Read up a bit on U.S. history, etc. Not only am I permitted to make dumb statements (but rarely do), but so are you. I was actually reserving judgment on your overall level of foolishness until you made the above statement.//

If you want to represent your agency well, go back to school and finish up some English classes. Seriously, several people here have mentioned it to you and you don't seem to get it. Public relations does matter, and if I were part of the TSA, I'd be highly sensitive to my employees posting on public forums in the manner you've adopted as your style.

Do you really actually work for them?[/QUOTE]

I've wondered that very thing.

Seems TSORon is a lawsuit looking for a place to happen.

So if bomb explodes inside the sterile area = bad, but if the bomb explodes 20 feet outside where lots of pax and screeners are working = good?

Glad TSA's really keeping us safe there.

I believe the whole implied consent thing is based on taking an affirmative action saying that you consent to an action. The courts have held that we have not submitted to a bag search until we place our bags on the x-ray belt.

I could put a sign up saying "Crossing this line may subject you to me beating you up." You look at the sign, cross, and I beat you up. Clearly illegal, but does that mean I get off scott free since you allowed me to beat you because simply by my placing a sign had no right or legal standing to place? That makes no sense.

I think you need more than a sign and crossing a line to get by the implied consent.

The difference is I'm a private citizen and I'm free to choose how to react to a situation. While trying to put out the fire and/or calling the fire department are the preferable actions and the moral decisions here, I'm under no obligation to do any of the above. My procedures as a private citizen aren't prescribed in law.

On the other hand, TSA's roles and responsibilities are defined in law. You (TSA collectively) are charged with keeping WEI off planes and out of the sterile area. Why? To keep us safe (TSA's justification for everything). TSA's taken that to the extreme and expanding that.

What it boils down to, Ronnie, is that you're trying to have it both ways. On one hand, you're telling me that TSA does all this stuff in an effort to keep us safe from WEI, but when TSA exposes us and its staff to that threat by cavalierly tossing potential EI in the garbage, you tell us it's not your job? Which is it, Ronnie.

TSA can't on one hand be ever expanding its paws into everything while ignoring things that are hard, inconvenient, or "not our job" when a flaw in TSA's process is pointed out.

Pick a position and stick with it.

Well considering a device at the "moat" would most likely cause damage into the "sterile area" and would probably take out the blue shirt brigade, but then again considering TSAs repeated failures as seen in the news and >50% red team tests failed on announced "secret tests".

Come on Ron whats wrong. Please file suit against spiff as i hope you have deep pocket books because spiff would have a legal defense fund quicker then a neurotransmitter impulse passes between two synapses in your mind

Ron TSAs chartered mission was to keep WEAPONS INCENDIARY and EXPLOSIVES off aircraft, not the hundreds if not thousands of mission creeps or violations of laws and the constitution that TSA keeps doing day in day out.

Yes. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and the TSA is quite infected right now.

Let's cue up the tape and see what really happened.

On April 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, TSORon wrote the following in the comments section on the TSA Blog:

Not only did TSORon state that transporting $10k cash out of the country was illegal he also indicated that TSA is violating the limited Administrative Search for WEI in such cases.

Here's a bit more of his post: "TSORon said...
I�ll do what I can to help you out RB.

�Can someone at TSA articulate what threat this person presented to the air transportation system?�


So TSORon is clearly telling us that he has direction from his superiors to intentionally violate the term of TSA's Administrative Search.

Seems like a crime has been committed by TSA leadership! Why has no one at TSA been held accountable?

I�ll use small words. I don�t.

Because it IS my job, at the checkpoint. Duh

What makes you think they suspected it was illicit drugs?