Unfortunately, Kippie has.

I'm still trying to figure out what I'm going to do for an airport shirt when Kippie's finally booted from office with the new administration.

Problems and complaints get reported everyday to TSA.

Nothing happens.

TSA is above the law and nothing us no-count citizens do can change that.

Just ask Kippie!

Police term: Be On the Look Out.

Basically, we're looking for this person/car/whatever because we think it's been involved in a crime.

I just went through my 3 hour CME for WMD awareness. One of the bullet points is that anyone who is especially religious (not just Islamic) or anyone who believes in the concept that the Constitution is a limitation on the government is a potential terrorist.

Which is probably one of the reasons why I'm on the list. Calling Dubya a death eater probably didn't help, either.

That is really stupid. I would have problems with ACCME for accrediting an educational program with content based on Fox News reports.

How would they verify the volume of such a container?

So is it the volume or the label that matters? Am I allowed to bring 4oz of liquid through in a bottle that has the letters "3oz" printed somewhere on it?

What is CME? Can you provide a copy of the training materials that stated that someone who expresses the belief that the U.S. Constitution limits the power of government should be treated with extra suspicion as a potential terrorist?

Thinking Kip Hawley is an Idiot� is a crime?

Spotnik, how do you think this mess is going to end? Do you see the TSA ever being reined in or do you see the TSA becoming more and more of a renegade agency?

Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that you are "protecting" us from terrorists?

I know.

There are some good ones out there, and why limit yourself to just one?

I know. The "Got Feedback" program shows some early signs of promise. Other than that, please keep trying. I know it seems pointless, but there is nothing better I can suggest, short of taking to the streets with pistols in your belt.

For those who would take the previous comment as some incitement to revolution, I am not advocating that people actually take to the streets with pistols.

Well, in that case, here is some info on other probable terrorists.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States
Grrrr..., I hate referencing Wikipedia.

So Dubya is a death eater? That explains a few things.

They can't, thus, the problem. When I was a TSO, I always took the "well, it looks like the right size, so I'll let it go" approach. Most of us see travel size containers often enough that we know what a 3 oz, 5 oz, 8 oz, ect. container looks like. Now, we just need to employ people who will use some d*** common sense, then empower them to actually apply said common sense.

I'd like to hear what happens if you do. The limit is still 3.4 fl oz, regardless of what's printed on the bottle. Except that if the bottle says 6 fl oz and is 1/4 full, we still need to consider it to be 6 fl. oz. Except if the bottle appears to be labeled in a way that is inconsistent with the size, it might still not be allowed. Except if the container appears to be altered to misrepresent the volume contained, it might still not be allowed...
See the problem?

(Activate sarcasm)
No, but expressing your opinion at a checkpoint is. After all, according to some STSO in MKE, the first amendment doesn't apply at the checkpoint.
(Sarcasm off)

I think this will depend on the outcome of the fall election.
McCain: Screening operations privatized, Non-screening operations folded into appropriate other government agencies. TSA largely disbanded or folded back into FAA. Many middle and low upper level managers loose their jobs.

Obama: Screeners unionized, and probably also privatized. TSA sticks around and maintains oversight, but only the highest level employees are actually government. Most employees become government contractors.

I think the direction the TSA takes in regard to civil rights and liberties will rely greatly on Mr. Hawley's replacement. I don't know who either candidate would choose to fill that position.

Yes, to the best of my ability. Of course, the real question is from which terrorists you need the most "protection." Not all terrorists are militant groups.

You do realize, I hope, that the reason the 9/11 attacks were successful was NOT because of lax gate security.

The question is, then, why did we need to create yet another bloated, inefficient federal bureaucracy that couldn't have prevented the attack they have been designed to thwart, even if they had been in place?

Yes, 9/11 was successful because, as of 9/10/01, hijacking was one of the safest, most trouble-free crimes by which to be victimized. Airline crews and passengers were recommended to follow hijacker's orders, and typically the worst thing that happened was that the passengers and crew got to take an unexpected side trip. All the implements the terrorists involved in those attacks used were perfectly legal to carry on planes as of the morning of 9/11/01.

In my conversations with colleagues who were contract screeners before TSA, I'm not sure the creation of TSA was necessary. Prevailing opinion among them seems to be that the beneficial changes could have been enacted among the old contract screening forces, and would have gotten pretty much the same results. I didn't follow aviation security issues very closely before 9/11/01, so I can't really say that I have the best informed opinion on this matter.

Also, I believe that the patriots of United 93 showed us exactly what would happen in the event of a modern hijacking. The only difference between them and the passengers of the other flights is that they got information about what was really happening early enough to do something about it. They probably saved countless lives, possibly including my own. (God bless them.) That's part of why I take real security so seriously, and why I am intolerant of the "security theater."

Success of the operation may also have been related to (as reported to the 9/11 Commission, later confirmed and reconfirmed by eyewitness Norman Mineta, then U.S. Secretary of Transportation) Dick Cheney's issuance of an order for NORAD to stand-down as the hijacked jetliner approached the Pentagon.

Mineta's testimony on May 23, 2003, to the 9/11 Commission included:Mineta has since explained that at the time he assumed that the orders to which the young man referred were to shoot down the hijacked plane, but learned later that this was not the case. Note that Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission was not included in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Also likely related: a June 1, 2001, change in NORAD and Pentagon orders that revoked the default standing orders to shoot down errant or hijacked aircraft and instructed them instead to stand down until they were given orders by the President, Vice President or Secretary of Defense.

Well, I'm glad to see that at least one TSA employee "gets it."