Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 16860465)

Sheet explosives are a poor excuse to examine paper (including photo paper) content for images and/or copy (writing/type). ETD swabbing is a less intrusive means that can be used to rule out a variety of explosives without the TSA hiding behind a claim about "sheet explosives" concern resulting in TSA examination of paper content for images and/or writing/type.

Originally Posted by janetdoe (Post 16865208)

This. I don't understand why any TSA is looking through papers before they swab them and run an ETD.

Originally Posted by SATTSO (Post 16866758)

There is MUCH more to it than that. Despite what was talked about in the court decisions, much of TSAs procedure to check bags was left out.

Originally Posted by SFOSpiff (Post 16866818)

So you're saying that TSA makes it a habit to check the content of one's papers, not just the physical material?

I know you won't answer but just flame me for putting words in your mouth, but you made the bed...

Originally Posted by SATTSO (Post 16863901)

You are entirely incorrect to beleive that "from some perspective, every bag is suspected to have an IED in it until proven otherwise". No insult meant, but I would never check a bag I believed had part of an IED in it. I may be a TSA employee, but I'm not that stupid ;) (despite what some here believe!).

If the bag is believed to have an IED or one of its components in it, then a process starts, and at each level of that process if the result is positive, lets say, there will NOT be a bag check. At the end of the process, after multipe "positive" conditions are met, a bomb disposial unit is called.

However, many - most, or almost all - bag checks are NOT believed to have an IED or IED component in it.

Originally Posted by SATTSO (Post 16862375)

I very much disagree. Besides BAOs, no TSA employee is certified to evaluate non-volatile explosives from volatile ones. However, if the potential explosive or IED component is detected while the bag is in the x-ray, well, what you are looking at is a computer generated image, not "live" parts. It then becomes very difficult to say with certainty what exactly you are looking at. Precautions have to be taken. To do otherwise could potentially get people killed from stupidity.

No, if an x-ray operator suspects that there may be explosives or other IED components in a bag, and the BAO confirms that, even if not assembled or even if only one part of the IED is visible, prudence would tell you to call the bomb squad, as they are equipped to handle such situations.

And I want to point out something very important here which seems to be a very hard concept for those who have not worked x-ray to understand (based on my understanding of reading hundreds of post here on FT - so no insult meant): x-ray machines have limits. Do NOT assume a bag is put into the x-ray reveals everything in the bag. It very well may not. As I have tried to explain multiple times before using x-ray to screen bags is not the most thorough method; it potentially allows things to go through. And one thing you ALWAYS have to ask yourself when you decide to clear or threat a bag or call a supervisor to contact the BAO is, "what am I, what are we, NOT seeing on this screen?"

As example, under training from the BAOs, they have show me and other TSA employees complete IEDs (simulations) in bags where you only see 1 part of the IED. Its all there, but only 1 part can be seen.

So I believe calling the bomb squad is the correct thing to do when there is suspected IED parts in a bag (note: there is a process that has to be followed before the bomb squad is called, which of course I will not go into, and which so far I have seen no one has picked up on. Sorry.).

Originally Posted by Pesky Monkey (Post 16862562)

So logically, 100% of people carrying any cash (in the above cites) must have been handling cocaine. :rolleyes:
Is there any point here?

Originally Posted by Pesky Monkey (Post 16862562)

So logically, 100% of people carrying any cash (in the above cites) must have been handling cocaine. :rolleyes:
Is there any point here?

Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 16862694)

So what? Unless there is clear evidence the cash was the proceed of criminal activity, there is absolutely no reason to get worked up over it - and even if it was proceeds, the airport is not the place to determine this.

Originally Posted by ESpen36 (Post 16867083)

I agree on this point. And furthermore, the determination should be made by LEOs, not TSOs. But the point of seizure might be the airport.

Originally Posted by bocastephen (Post 16867169)

Cash in not a sign of criminal conduct - if the government thinks cash is so bad, why not get rid of it and put everyone on electronic currency tied to our social security, passport or visa number so every transaction can be tracked, and the underground economy is eliminated - thankfully this hasn't happened.

Originally Posted by ESpen36 (Post 16867083)

You've seen those crime shows on TV. What is the first thing they do when a criminal is in the wind? They check airline manifests to see if the guy bought a ticket to leave the city, and they send a bunch of cops to the airports and train stations to see if they can spot the guy! Or they close down those locations. Airports are PERFECT places to look for people who might be breaking the law and then trying to get out of town.

Originally Posted by SFOSpiff (Post 16867210)

Ok, for the minute I'm going to overlook the part where we use TV shows to justify our real-world behavior. This is why people who watched "24" thought that torture was ok.

Now, let me correct you: airports are not the perfect place to look, they are the easy place. Your average major metropolitan area has 2-3 airports and maybe a couple of major train stations. There's plenty of cameras, restricted spaces with few exits, and once the person boards the plane or train, there are fewer opportunities to escape. That's much easier to watch than the couple of dozen major highways and lesser roads leading out of town.

Just because some criminals use airports for escape does not mean that everyone at an airport should be treated as a possible criminal. Especially because TSA's mission is aviation security, not traditional law enforcement.
Or, at least, if you're going to apply that twisted sort of logic, it should apply to everyone, including the TSA screeners. We should assume that all of them are thieves, and they should be thrown in jail on the flimsiest of accusations.

Originally Posted by RichardKenner (Post 16866919)

I think we're getting hung up on the meaning of the word "suspect". Let's try it this way: if you were 100% sure that a bag did not contain any prohibited item, you wouldn't need to run it through the x-ray. Therefore, when you're presented with a bag, you believe that the probability that it might have an IED is nonzero, as is the probability it might have IED components or a weaopn (let's ignore the other prohibited items here). Once you look at the x-ray image(s), you're able to make a much more accurate asessment of those probabilities. If all of them are sufficiently low, you clear the bag.

If the sufficiently non-zero probability is the weapon case, you call a bag check. There's some threshold for the other two probabilities for which you start the process that culminates in the bomb squad being called. My contention is that there's a lower probability threshold for which you wouldn't go that route, but instead call a bag check. Is that correct?

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 16866942)

Are TSA employees shown Sheet Explosives (or simulants) during initial TSA training?