Which is essentially meaningless due to the its wide application (I had to take one too, although I declined to "swear" and was allowed to "affirm" after the appropriate bureaucratic head-scratching).
It does seem too many take it waay too seriously however, especially the defend part. Screeners search people, they defend nobody.
Spot on. I am quite sure that those TSOs who have no qualms about bullying passengers have no qualms about bullying their coworkers either. This attitude can't be changed from the bottom up and I see no likelihood of it changing from the top down either. Recent 60 minutes and Frontline episodes confirm that intransigence is rife throughout the top levels and policy-makers; while those people continue to maintain their bunker outlook, nothing will change.

There will be no changes at the top until there is a change of administration. Maybe not then either.

Deleted

I'll stick my foot in this and reiterate something I've made even the stubborn mob at pprune.org see the logic of. I've also ranted it here, but I'll do it again:

You are confusing the topic of security and safety. 95% about what you are on about here is to criticise safety and berate how safety is practiced. And I agree, seen from a safety. But it can be argued that what is being practiced is sound security, seen from the right perspective.

From the perspective of money most of the security measures taken the last 10-15 have been made to make the everyday flier feel more safe, hence protecting revenue. It does provide security for the airlines themself, economically, and ultimately that is the main reason they exist.

-A

Thus the need for more women in charge. :D Sorry, couldn't resist.

Not a word I use often, but that's bullsh!t.

Obviously the oath means something to you, since you refer to it frequently; but to assume it means anything at all to every TSA screener is simply your stereotype. And if a man's word did indeed "mean something", every screener should be behaving like you apparently do. Clearly, they don't.

Feel free to explain it to me again :rolleyes: .


I guess the irony of my "maybe" escaped you.

Yes, a mandarin is a mandarin whatever party is in power. But I do think there is a slight chance that with a less militaristic administration, one more willing (hell, make that at all willing) to admit mistakes, they might place a bit more importance in filling high DHS/TSA posts with people who actually understand the mission.

Call me a dreamer if you like. Somebody has to be.

Deleted

I agree, but without degenerating into politics I don't rule out completely the possibillity that a (cough) different administration might try to clean it up. I've given up hope about the DHS being scrapped entirely though.

The best I'm looking for is an end to the revolving door of Coasties or similar quasi-military "leaders". Fighting terrorism is not the same as combat (despite the "war" tag), it needs smart, nimble civilians not a cumbersome and rigid command structure.

Deleted

I realise this touches a nerve with you and as one of the most vocal critics of "military mentality", I should explain that I apply that epithet not so much to the grunts at the sharp end (though I've met some real doozies there too !) as to the chain. The higher up you go, the worse it gets in general (no pun); there are some first-class individuals in the higher ranks but many, many more stereotypical REMFs. And they seem to be the ones expected, simply by dint of rank, to know what to do about civilian security. No chance IMO.

Yes, there's a "corporate mentality" too and that's not much better, except that it's more about incompetence and dishonesty than about rigidity and intimidation.

America is (still) woefully inept about internal security and the threat of terrorism. You need an organization blending the best of civilian, law-enforcement and perhaps some specialized military skills. The mix is far from right yet; but for sure the last thing needed is a federal bureaucracy. Which is what we have.

100% spot on, Bart.

There are bad apples in any organization, and it has been my experience that they are the ones that tend to attract attention, especially when they're at the top.

There are a lot of positive traits that military training provides to their officers. It's not appropriate for all positions, companies, or industries. But assuming that there is not an outright clash of cultures, I agree that folks with military backgrounds do have a lot to provide to the civilian world. The challenge, of course, is to find the ones that can bridge the cultural gap and make positive contributions.