nachtnebel

From the link:

Just fortunate non of the kilos were things that go boom.

tkey75

Actually, this is most likely another case of the TSA causing more deaths than saving lives. Cocaine's a hell of a drug. Especially by the kilo.

gnaget

Why didn't they just replace the contents of some bottles of baby powder, flour bags, whatever. That's not going to trigger any interest from TSA.

ou81two

We've had people in our military who have been prosecuted for rape and killing civilians. That that mean that people sitting comfortably home in their nice safe houses should think that all of those men and women who put their lives on the line so we can be free should be branded that way? No, it doesn't.

Take away all airplane security and restrictions and see what happens. You'd have any terrorist wannabe shooing a 22 though the hull of a plane and depressurizing it at 40k feet.

Sorry man, I fly. I'll take the security and call BS on your statement.

petaluma1

Nobody on this board wants to do away with all security.

And yes, the actions of a few reflect on the entire organization, which is one of the reasons that TSA screeners have such a lousy reputation.

From Norfolk State University, Employee Code of Ethics:

"....employees’ personal and professional conduct reflects on the University, their chosen profession and the Commonwealth of Virginia. "

https://www.nsu.edu/Assets/websites/...-of-Ethics.pdf

jkhuggins

Actually, it does.

At least, that's the point of view of the military itself ... which, when such incidents are publicized, complains that the publicity over these incidents serves to incite our opponents to violent acts against us --- PRECISELY because they believe that every member of the military should be characterized in the same way.

When one puts on a uniform, one's actions --- good and bad alike --- reflect upon the organization that bestowed the uniform.

WillCAD

That depends on the organization's response.

If a lot of soldiers do bad things, break the law, and abuse the trust that's placed in them, but are held accountable for their actions by the military, then we have a trustworthy and accountable military, and the actions of the criminals don't reflect on the organization as a whole.

If such bad actions are covered up, rationalized, explained away, ignored, or condoned by the organization, then those actions DO reflect on the organization as a whole. Which sounds a lot like TSA, doesn't it?

Nice straw man argument! It warrants a Golf Clap:



But check yourself before you wreck yourself - who in this thread, or even in this board, is seriously suggesting taking away ALL security and restrictions? Nobody.

No.

Body.

What we want is practical, sensible, non-invasive security that doesn't violate the Constitution, applies equally to all people with access to the aircraft, and is based on actual, practical threat vectors, not those imagined by movies and novels and paranoid hyperbolics.

By the way - firing a .22 through an aircraft's hull while it's pressurized in flight will make a hole approximately 0.22" in diameter - about the size of a think pencil - which will not depressurize the cabin to any appreciable amount, and it certainly won't take down the entire aircraft. Except in movies. Which are fantasy. So, I'll call BS on your irrational fear, and I'll take my Constitutional rights and freedoms that were paid for with the lives of tens of thousands of American soldiers over the last 200-odd years.

ou81two

Not being held accountable? You know this whole thread is about two TSA agents being indicted on some serious charges, right? Also, feel free to let me know of another job where you get fired for putting a penny from the floor in your pocket.

There's no straw man there. Nobody? I've seen people in threads on this page suggesting that the TSA be done away with completely. Call them out on what they should do and you get crickets. The Supreme Court, put in place by that document you pretend to love so much has no problem with any of this.

Ever wonder why FT buried this forum so deep in the website? Think about that.

jkhuggins

Shooting a bullet through the hull of a plane likely won't depressurize it.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/inn...n-on-plane.htm

http://curiosity.discovery.com/quest...e-gun-on-plane

Sorry, man ... the statistical evidence says that the statement is justified.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...-is-killing-us

http://humanevents.com/2012/01/24/ts...aths-annually/

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archiv..._automobi.html

ou81two

What evidence is that. GO ahead and read those links and summarize.

Oh I forgot to add, what do you think happens when you pop a few caps through a window on of the aforementioned airplanes. I think even you can figure that one out.

jkhuggins

You said "shooting a 22 through the hull", not "pop a few caps through a window". I can only address what you said, not what you forgot to say.

*plonk*

petaluma1

Doing away with the TSA is NOT the same as doing away with all security.

This forum is not "buried so deep inside the website." You want to find forums "buried so deep" try clicking on anything highlighted in blue here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php

WillCAD

Citation, please? Anything at all? I've certainly never heard of a TSO being fired for putting a penny from the floor into his pocket. Again, I call BS hyperbole.

Again I call BS. First, as petaluma1 so eloquently put it, doing away with TSA is NOT the same as doing away with all security. You have a selective focus - those who advocate doing away with TSA always conclude that call by saying something like "and returning to pre-9/11 security" or "and return security to the airlines" or "and let the individual airports or local governments handle security." Nobody in their right mind wants a completely unsecured aviation system. Nobody in their right mind even wanted that prior to 9/11.

Also BS is your crickets claim. There are pages, and pages, and more pages, of detailed discussion on EXACTLY, PRECISELY what sort of security we want. It's been discussed, re-discussed, and re-re-re-discussed over and over again in this forum. Those threads may not be on Page 1 any more, though, so I suggest you learn how to use the search function.

More BS is your claim that the SCOTUS doesn't have any problem "with this." With what, exactly? No lawsuit dealing specifically with NoS, suspicionless full-body pat-downs, liquids restrictions, the shoe carnival, the name game, or the smell of BDO have ever been heard by the SCOTUS. Most of them have been tied up in the Circuit courts, and many have been refused, not on their own merits, but because the Circuits feel that they don't have jurisdiction for some odd legal reason.

However, lawsuits are currently under way in lower courts challenging the processes used for the no-fly list, and are making substantial headway. Perhaps one day the stain of this un-Constitutional violation of due process and multiple other rights will finally be wiped clean from the American soul.

Um... the TS&S board is at the SECOND LEVEL of the boards. It's ONE extra click to get here from the tippy-top level, just like the destination boards, the credit card program boards, and the individual airline boards. Think about that.

Schmurrr

I think you do not know what "straw man" means.

Point to a post wherein someone suggested that TSA should be done away with and airport security completely eliminated.

Point to a Supreme Court case wherein TSA procedures were found to be Constitutional.

If FT doesn't support the existence of this forum, why doesn't FT eliminate it?