That is indeed what I think happened from the description. And if there's an unexpected delay in boarding, it's not uncommon for a passenger to decide that they need to do something else before boarding: perhaps using the restroom or water fountain or buying food, beverage, or more reading material. I don't see the TSA has the authority to prevent those actions.

As to the issue of how often screening detects WEI, it's easy to forget that the major purpose of the checkpoints is deterrence. It's like when the police announce they'll be setting up sobriety checkpoints on a major drinking holiday: they're not doing that to catch more drunk drivers, but to discourage driving drunk.

Deterrence is irrelevant when there's no one to deter. Said deterred individuals would simply go somewhere other than an airport. Yet, we haven't seen these (seemingly thousands) of people.

Screening passengers before the gate agent has started to board the aircraft is a manifestly stupid idea. Come to think of it, that means it's right up TSA's alley.

Exactly! Let's screen for pink elephants being smuggled on the aircraft at the gate.

Bingo.

Bingo.

No bingo.

These people were screened 10 minutes before boarding began. There was absolutely no possibility for them to get on the plane. Feel free to introduce your own facts and then argue about a different situation, but that is a good working definition of moving the goalposts.

I presume the man wanted to go back and stand in line next to what I assume was his daughter. The woman certainly wanted to get back in line.

Let's call it procedure X. Numerous people were screened. At least the two I was close enough to hear specifically asked if they could leave (e.g. get back in line) and were told they could not. There was no possibility to get on a plane because a gate agent wasn't even present at that time. They were forced to stay in a pen.

Hypothetical person? Classy.

And the Sky is blue. What does the fact that TSA invades our privacy before during and after have to do with this specific topic?

It never happened. Got it.

I am a male. You might have figured that out by the number of times I've complained about having some clerk rubbing MY BALLS.

My understanding of this event is pretty simple. Multiple people got rubbed all over their body by a couple of people in blue shirts. The first two gropees wanted to get back in line and wait to board with the people they were traveling with. TSA would not let them. I'm pretty sure that I'm capable of interpreting an event such as this occurring less than 5 feet away.

May I ask how you are interpreting an event that you didn't witness?

Like I said, let's call this procedure X. Care to comment on the situation without introducing your own, far more enlightened, facts about an event you never witnessed?

Still classy I see.

ScatterX (that's me; the guy that actually witnessed this event) is the OP (the one who described the event in the original post (aka OP).

You might want to go see a civil engineer and get your attention span checked.

TSA is already screening for them. The process is far more comprehensive that any of us idiots and hallucinators can imagine.

Obviously it's working. I haven't heard of a single pink elephant trying to sneak on a plane yet.

Why a LEO response? If TSOs have no authority to detain, and a traveler leaves when a TSO says, "Stay," then the traveler has broken no law, rule, or reg, since the TSO has, by your own admission, no authority to force anyone to stay anywhere.

Telling someone to stay in a certain place, under threat, coercion, or color of authority, fits the legal definition of "detain", and since TSOs have no authority to detain anyone, then by definition we are all free to go whenever a TSO says, "Stay."

A system in which most of the layers consist of "random" selection is like trying to build a boat out of multiple layers of mesh; the idea is that the holes in the mesh will not line up and if you add enough layers, the water won't get through. But in practical application, you can never add enough layers of mesh to make the boat even close to watertight, and it will sink like a stone when you put it in a lake.

If there's no way to prove intent, why is TSA spending millions of dollars per year to stink up the joint with their rank BDO?

Intent is an integral part of the criminal justice system, but intent can only be proven by examining a person's actions, not by reading their minds with unproven pseudo-scientific voodoo.

And if TSA has so little confidence in the "layers" of screening that exist at the checkpoint that they feel the need to harass me yet again at the gate with another un-Constitutional physical violation, and an illegal detention, then YES, the blame rests solely with TSA and its incompetence at the checkpoint, it's ever-expanding desire to treat innocent people like criminal suspects without warrant, probable cause, or articulable suspicion, and it's belligerent and adversarial attitude toward the traveling public.

In plainer language, Ron, if your agency did its job with even the remotest level of competence and professionalism at the checkpoint, gate searches would never even have been considered remotely necessary. This "layers" excuse is nothing more than a NewSpeak method of covering up the fact that the checkpoint, which is where all of the most important "layers" are implemented, is so full of holes that you can't trust it, so you repeat some of the most invasive and abusive layers at the gate.

It also reminds me of Albert Einstein's famous quote: "The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

And you take far too broad a view of what screening is.

Any passenger screening that takes place prior to a traveler's arrival at the checkpoint is not screening, it's a background investigation. And, as far as I know, investigation is not within TSA's mandate.

How much investigation does TSA do? Can they use the administrative search doctrine to open my mail, search my home, or tap my phone without warrant, just because I've bought a plane ticket? Can they run my financial and phone records, demand my web surfing history from my ISP, and question my coworkers? Can they perform "sneak and peak" searches in my home? Can they run down my medical records? No, they can't; but at some point, each of those things could be proposed if TSA takes your view that "screening" is whatever they want it to be, whenever they want it to be, on anybody who intends to travel.

Where ARE the limits, Ron? Do you even believe that limits to TSAs authority exist? Where do you think they should be?

A reasonable assumption. In large airports gate screening can take quite a bit of time, so beginning just a bit early is one way of ensuring that the flight is not late for its departure time. But I have not seen or heard any reports of gate screening causing a flight to be delayed. Many things can cause a flight to become late, and we have specifically designed the program to prevent screening from becoming one of them.

Then again, we can "what if" all day long and never get anywhere. Theories are great, until they are countered by facts.

The OP, an eyewitness to the events, has offered his eyewitness testimony. Since none of the rest of us were there, theories are all that the rest of us can offer.

But Ron, you said earlier that gate screening is only done when the person can then immediately board the aircraft. Now you say starting just a bit early is one way TSA chooses to ensure a flight departs on time. Which is it?

Given your confusion (or goal post changing) about what gate screening actually is combined with admitting that what I described is a reasonable assumption, would you care to retract the insulting remark you made about me misinterpreting an incident I was an eyewitness to?

When starting early is followed by refusing to let people move freely after (insert whatever you want to call the process you are starting early here), it's an easy way for TSA to illegally detain someone too.

Screening causing delays is NOT related to this incident. This flight was simply not ready for boarding. TSA pulled people out of line for Procedure X (full body rubbing, followed by refusal to let the people leave). This was not related to a delayed flight because THE FLIGHT WAS NOT READY FOR BOARDING. Which part do you not understand?

Minimizing the confusion and what if games is a lot easier when you don't make up new facts and then "what if" them. @:-)

It is sadly ironic that you are the one to make a snide comment about theories and facts, when you are leading the league in making up theories and presenting them as facts. You started by criticizing the interpretation of something you didn't see. You followed that up with multiple insinuations that "it didn't happen" or, even if it did, it was misinterpreted or the description was seriously lacking. And now, you state this situation is not only a reasonable assumption, but you describe why TSA is doing that very thing.

Dude, seriously?

A very rational point. :D

We were not there indeed. But we do know that the OP's version is colored by his bias and lack of knowledge about the processes being used. That should tell us quite a bit.

I was not there, so I have no more information on what happened than you do. But my knowledge of the program and its goals allows me to sift through the bias, at least a bit more than the average poster. Besides, eye witness testimony if notoriously inaccurate as any police officer can tell you.

A 747-400 can carry quite a few people, and it may take more than an hour to board the entire flight. Starting the gate screening a bit early lessens the pressure on the gate agents to meet their designated departure time.

Given the obvious mischaracterization of the events, no I don’t think so. Eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate, you can ask any police officer about that, or a prosecuting attorney if you like.

You are assuming they are being detained. Was anyone holding them in place physically? Was there a threat of some kind to ensure compliance? As I said, separating the screened passengers from the unscreened is a solid security concept, one use around the world.

Then it was not gate screening. Pretty simple concept.

Agreed. So let’s both avoid doing that, OK?

No. I am presenting a non-SSI version of what gate screening is, not what it is not.

YActually, I read what was written and filtered the bias and lack of specific knowledge about process. I don’t believe I criticized anything, I only pointed out the factual errors. By what you have written it is obvious to me that you do seriously lack knowledge about what was going on. That lack is intentional on the part of TSA, we don’t want you to know the “who, what, when, where, why, or how” of what we do, so that is not your fault in any way. But the assumptions are, especially if they are incorrect. Best not to make assumptions then submit them for public comment. What is that saying…. “Best to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”? Seriously.

On the other had, it is entirely possible that your interpretation of these events is just as biased as any other interpretation offered here, based upon your (natural) loyalty to your employer. Knowledge of the program does not eliminate the possibility of bias regarding its operation.

Yes, eyewitness testimony has its limits. So does armchair quarterbacking. :)

Ah, but we have an important difference between separation of screened passengers, particularly in an international context, and what was reported by the OP.

I've traveled internationally, and experienced separation of screened passengers. In that context, screened passengers are always free to leave the screened area, but must undergo screening once again in order to re-enter the screened passenger area. In the original report here, we were told that passengers were informed that they could not leave the screened passenger holding zone. That seems to me to be a significant difference.

And at airports outside the US, where gate screening is employed, the airport is designed to make this process as convenient as possible. There are seats in the screened area, and there are almost always rest rooms available.

Every time I see TSA try to do a gate screening in the C/D terminal at IAD, I just laugh. There isn't enough room anywhere in that terminal to set aside a "clean" zone for screened passengers before they board.