Glad to know they have risen to a higher lever. :o

The tree should be pruned, the apples (rotten) culled, or better yet a chainsaw, wood chipper, stump dissolver, and bonfire should be applied to said tree.

"Get the hell out of my classroom before you infect anyone else with your sickness!" - Mr. Buzzcut, Beavis and Butthead

Are we really to the point where some think that checking IDs a second time before boarding the plane actually reduces the threat to air travel?

Or even checking it the first time!

Yes. Checking ID's reduces the threat to air travel. I have no idea why a second ID check was performed. Perhaps if it was like I saw in TUS once, the TSA conducted the second check to avoid the impact on the passengers of having to clear the terminal and rescreen all PAX as a firedoor had been left unsecured. Or perhaps it is a RAM designed to be effective in its unpredictability. I don't know. But my blood does not boil for some reason at being told to provide ID before boarding a plane with several hundred people I do not know. To me it just makes sense.

Ah, yes, but in today's America, SSI trumps the Constitution.

^^

You haven't explained how it reduces the threat. (Good luck trying.)

So you believe that conducting a second check ID check was equivalent to rescreening after a security breech?

How does that make sense? So their IDs match their boarding passes a second time. Again I ask, how does that make you (or anyone else) safer?

:D:D:D

Hmmm. You said; "Are we really at a point to where we think that there is NO threat to air travel? I think that is oversimplifying the case back to the Clintonian approach to anti terrorism. Ignore it and they will not bother us.

I just think that statements like "none of this is in response to a real threat" is MASSIVELY oversimplifying the case."

I'd like you to give one scenario, just one, where checking a 10 year or more old picture ID against a home-printed document, anywhere at the airport can predict, prevent or affect anything involving aircraft security. Feel free to use flights of fantasy as you wish...

So go ahead and share. You seem to have the answers... I am waiting as you brought it up...

I disagree completely with this statement.

It is none of the government's damn business who travels domestically. Ever.

(emphasis mine - abridged to cover a specific comment)

How exactly, under the current regimen in place with TSA, does ANY ID Check reduce the threats to air travel?

Would this be; I say it, therefore it's true? I see no other rationale in your post.

And victimizing only certain flights helps resolve this (imagined) problem how?

Come, now Kip, it's time to move on and find some honorable and viable employment.

Oh, well then, that's good enough for me. :rolleyes:
You know other pax now they showed ID to someone you don't know?

IF we assume that the Gov't issued ID is not fake, then yes, comparing it to a home printed boarding pass helps in the process of limiting risk to an aircraft. Supposedly the TSA agents are trained to identify the differences between valid forms of ID and those same ID's faked. Could the terrorist have a valid Gov't issued ID. They might, but that is the responsibility of the issuing agency to verify. The airline and the airport are responsible for all of the people boarding their aircraft. Therefore they have to determine the ID's of all passengers. That responsibility has in part been turned over to the TSA. Incorrectly but it has.

There is no magic cure all for terrorism and ID'ing pax will never be the one step answer. However, I think that it is reasonably argued that it is a prudent part of a larger force protection design. You cannot hope to identify belligerents if you cannot identify Jane and John Doe. Also, I think that it is important to remember that the act of verifying ID is not a "search."

(What belongs to the ID?)

If checking domestic air passengers' IDs reduces the threat to air travel, would checking car passenger IDs reduce the threat to road travel? Even if it did, would checking those IDs be justified, legal, or "the right thing to do"?

The analysis concerning the CFR's is incorrect, but you are in good company as Francine can't even see it.

A basic rule of construction concerning the interpretation of CFR’s is that they are to be interpreted in the strictest sense especially when the regulation involves restrictions on individuals and their actions. The agency that promulgates the regulation also is the drafter. As such, if the agency wanted to make the rule broader, it should have drafted it as such.

As you noted, 49 C.F.R. §1540.105(a)(2) addresses not only the “sterile area” as related to systems, measures and procedures. It also includes secured areas, AOA’s and SIDA’s. For that reason, the other “systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas” are dependent on the particular area at issue.

So, for example, in the case of SIDA’s an acceptable system would be the checking of ID’s. On the other hand the definition of sterile area sets forth the specifics for those systems, measures and procedures, which is the screening of persons and property. How is that screening accomplished – through the screening function, which is defined as “inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.” Until the CFR is amended, that is TSA's limit for the sterile area.

No, it doesn't and it is none of the government's damn business whether ID matches a BP.

The federal government should be kicked out of every US airport.