No, one asks questions that may be based on an incorrect premise. You had it right at one point. Don't fall back into bad habits.

lmao if you think so ;)

I believe when someone is arguing semantics, they really have no firm ground to stand on..

Well, when we are talking "semantics," we have the benefit of excellent resource materials to draw from - dictionaries.

In the current context, a question is "a sentence in an interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to get information in reply." It can also be an "inquiry into or discussion of some problem or doubtful matter."

While the premise that the interrogative statement or inquiry is founded upon can indeed be faulty, it doesn't mean the question is "incorrect" - it simply means that the basis of knowledge used to formulate the question was incorrectly premised.

An even more common definition for question is an "the act of asking or inquiring."

Are you really going to continue claiming that the "act of asking or inquiring" can be "incorrect?"

The "act of asking or inquiring" is never an incorrect endeavour. But that is in a general philosophical sense. Specific questions can be incorrect - and they are so because they are based upon faulty assumptions.

Solutions to complex problems often elude discovery because faulty questions are asked, which leads to faulty conclusions. There is nothing incorrect about me stating a question is incorrect, if that question leads to faulty conclusions. Note, I am not saying the question can not be answered, it certainly can, but the answer will be faulty.

Sorry, I doubt you will convience me that questions can not be incorrect; I have give this much thought (back in college and the study of political philosophy) long before I came to this site. I and greater minds than I (and most likely yours, sorry) believe there can be incorrect questions.

You can argue with me if you wish. But shouldn't such an argument be the subject of PMs? As this particular conversation between you and I does not further this thread, if we continue to do so in public I am sure we can expect a moderator to delete these post, as happened to our other conversation.

Scenario 1a: You randomly select a blue sports bag for ETD. The owner is a 37-year old white male with brown hair and green eyes, mustache but no beard, wearing a plain red t-shirt and jeans. He has a Boston accent. He has put his wallet in the bag for safekeeping while going through the checkpoint. As you open the bag and put the ETD swab inside, his wallet falls open and you see a photograph of a naked boy of about 6 years old in one of the photo slots of the wallet. Do you call a LEO? (If this is insufficient information, please let me know what other information would be required to make a decision.)

Scenario 1b: I am behind a 37-year old white male with brown hair and green eyes, mustache but no beard, wearing a plain red t-shirt and jeans, in line at Starbucks. He has a Boston accent. When he opens his wallet to pay for his coffee, I see a photograph of a naked boy of about 6 years old in one of the photo slots of the wallet. Do you believe I should call a LEO? (If this is insufficient information, please let me know what other information would be required to make a decision.)

Scenario 2a: You randomly select a brown leather briefcase for ETD. The owner is a 29-year old Hispanic woman with brown hair and brown eyes, wearing a white blouse and green chinos. She has a New York accent. As you open the briefcase to do the ETD, you see a small plastic bag with white powder sticking out from under some papers. Do you call a LEO? (If this is insufficient information, please let me know what other information would be required to make a decision.)

Scenario 2b: As I'm waiting in line at Starbucks, I see a 29-year old Hispanic woman with brown hair and brown eyes, wearing a white blouse and green chinos. She opens her brown leather briefcase on the table, and I can see a small plastic bag with white powder sticking out from under some papers. Do you believe I should call a LEO? (If this is insufficient information, please let me know what other information would be required to make a decision.)

Just need yes/no (or an indication of what specific additional information is needed) for 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b.

For 1a and 1b not enough info. Is it a pic of a naked child bathing with a parent, or something like that? Is it a pic of an adult doing something of a terrible nature to that child? One type of pic is natural and common; one should not exist.

For 2a and 2b, based on the info you provided, no.

Okay, let's say it's just the child standing alone in an indoor setting facing the camera with a neutral expression. No other person, no obvious signs of violence or danger to the child, but no obvious signs that the child is happy, sad, scared, cheerful. Consider that you may only have a glance at the photo before you (or I) decide to call a LEO or let it go.

I don't know; more info needed. Wow, your really pushing this. ;)

many of you seem to not want TSOs to report anything other than WEIs. Some have even said we shouldn't report theft we see. Ok, fine.

But does that include reporting to a LEO if I see a TSO steal from a passenger? And if you say yes, report TSOs who steal from the traveling public, which has nothing to do with WEI, how can you justify reporting that and not other "crimes"?

What about a TSO who comes to the airport on their days off and commits theft (from the non-sterile side)? How does that protect against WEI if we report that?

What about a TSO who quits TSA, learns how easy it is to steal from baggage claim (as no one really monitors who takes what bag)? Should we report those situations, as that person is no longer a TSO? And if so, how would that help accomplish TSAs task of looking for WEI?


Please answer and explain. Thanks!!

If I found monkeys while conducting a pat-down, could I report that??

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07...est=latestnews

Here are some experiences I have had with TSA while working for TSA.

This occurred over a year ago.

I was on my way back home flying out of a very small airport cat 3 or cat 4. I had my work uniform in my bag but that wasn't the problem. The problem the Xray operator had was my metal badge which was inside my bag. Now let me explain why I had my uniform. I had my uniform because I got on the originating flight right after my shift ended then I just kept my uniform in my bag for my entire trip. Now back to my problem.

When I saw the bag checker grab my bag I was a bit confused because I know my bag was compliant 100%. The only thing I could think of was that it was just a random check. Nope.

The bag checker then told me she needed to search my bag and that I needed to come with her to the table. I said O-K.

Well the first thing she grabbed out of my bag was my metal badge(she didn't bother to look at the front of it) She then proceeded to tell me that my badge could not go because I could stab people with the metal pin on the back of it. She then told me I could put it in my checked bagage or mail it home.

At that point I told her to turn the badge over and look at the front of it.
She did so and then proceeded to tell me that I could have bought the badge anywhere.

I frowned and then reached into my back pocket to get my government ID and my Airport ID badge.

At that point she called her supervisor. Her supervisor comes over and inspects ALL of my ID. Then leaves without saying anything. Well after 20 damned minutes the supervisor comes back with an airport manager and tells me I have a phone call from my Airport.

The supervisor told MY airport managers that I was trying to circumvent security at her airport by flashing my metal badge.:mad:

Luckily my mangers know me very well and could tell the other airport were a bunch of idiot so I didn't get in any trouble except a warning to avoid that airport.

I'm not going to say what airport it was. But its very small and most of you will never fly out of it. Wish I could tell you guys but it for my privacy.

Snort, cough, snort, hahahahahahahahahahahaha, stop please.:D

Sounds like you may have run into some of the fine folks at the Joplin, Mo airport.

Sounds as if you have first hand experience with some of your less than fully qualified cow-orkers at other airports and know what we frequent travelers go through.:mad: As to the pin on the back of your badge being a weapon:rolleyes: a large safety-pin would be considered a weapon by some of those people.

You should have stopped right there.

No. The premise on which the questions are based on can be faulty, but not the act of raising the question.

Then cite some, and let's have a discussion. Otherwise, you're just playing games.

Interesting. I'm guessing you see yourself boxed into a corner with this discussion, so you raise the spectre of a moderator action as your salvation. Other than being off topic to the thread, this has been a respectful discussion between the two of us, so I don't know why it would require moderator intervention.

I have an easy solution to the problem. Stop telling other posters that their questions are incorrect, and this discussion will go away. :D

^ ^

Kinda SOP for this poster, cut and run when the going gets rough.

Okay, let's say an employee's assigned task is to discover WEI. That's simple, and does not include the reporting of any other criminal activity.

However, if, in the course of carrying out that assigned task, the employee exposes the public to risks they would not have been exposed to but for the employee's actions, the employee (or, more accurately, his or her employer), becomes responsible also for protecting against this added risk.

The situation would be no different if a highway department set up a detour which sent drivers over an unsafe bridge. You'd better believe that in that situation, the highway department would be liable if one of those drivers was injured when the bridge collapsed.

Same situation here: if the TSA can screen for WEI without exposing passengers to any risk that they would not otherwise have been exposed to, fine - your task is limited to discovering WEI. But if, in the course of screening for WEI, you require passengers to leave valuables unattended, then your agency is responsible for preventing any thefts that might result.

Similarly, per your hypothetical, if the training that TSOs receive (in either screening operations specifically or airport operations generally) provides those TSOs with knowledge that increases the risk that they will commit theft (or any other crime), then your agency is responsible for preventing those crimes as well.

Simply put, if the crime would not have occurred but for TSA's presence in the airport, then TSA is darned well responsible for preventing that crime!

As one who proposed the "If it's not a WEI, you didn't see it" rule for TSA screeners I'll take a stab at answering and explaining.

Answer: For all the scenarios you mentioned I reluctantly say, "Ignore it" with the possible exception of the employee who happens to be at the airport on a day off. Why this distinction? My concern is about what TSA employees do while on duty.

Explanation: As I stated before, TSA as an agency has repeatedly demonstrated that it's employees are insufficiently trained or disciplined to conduct their duties with the judgment and respect for constitutional protections incumbent on one empowered to conduct limited, administrative searches.

In any search without a warrant or probable cause protection of individual rights should be a high concern to the person conducting the search. The attitude that this search is strictly limited to the stated purpose and no other should be thoroughly ingrained in the searcher's mind. The desire of individual employees (and the agency itself) to venture away from searches for WEI into other areas (potential drugs, would-be pornography, "too much" cash, battery packs, etc. is well documented. Unfortunately, TSA employees, taken as a whole, have demonstrated that they are incapable of exercising sound, adult judgment. Thus, regrettable though it may be, the answer is to limit the opportunity to exercise judgment.

I'm sure that there are some TSA employees who try to conscientiously discharge their functions with due regard for passengers' dignity and rights. It is indeed unfortunate that the bullies, incompetents, and "Barney Fife's" have poisoned the reputation of the entire agency and all who work for it.

In sum, TSA has amply demonstrated that neither it nor its individual employees can be trusted to act properly. Thus the range of actions allowed must be constrained to the minimal amount possible.

Let me try to take a stab at this...

If, in the course of your legally permitted limited administrative search for WEI you uncover some evidence of a crime that is [i]not related[i] to the limited scope of your search, then you should ignore it.

Why? Simple. As someone employed by the government to conduct these searches, you are acting as a government authority (i.e. agent of the government). Searching for-- and reporting-- anything outside of the limited scope of weapons, incinderies, and explosives (the items expressly permitted by the courts) treads on very thin ice. It carries potential Fourth Amendment violations with it, simply because you're conducting the search in the capacity of a federal government employee at the time.

Does this mean you should turn a blind eye to anything else you see? Certainly not. If you see someone who appears to be stealing luggage, or wallets, or purses, or IDs, or whatever-- you should do what any normal person would do and report it to a LEO. (The distinction here is that reporting what appears, in good faith, to be a crime doesn't violate anybody's rights.)

Is it simple? Yes and no. It requires screeners to think and use some common sense when performing their duties. It requires screeners to have an understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and some basic laws governing what can and can't be done by government employees who are put in a position of authority over others (and there is no denying that screeners are in a position of authority at the checkpoint). I'm, quite frankly, disappointed and disgusted that extensive training and testing in such areas isn't a fundamental requirement before allowing someone to be put "on the line" as a public-facing screener. (Unfortunately I'm not surprised that it isn't. If there are some things that TSA has done consistently since its inception, they are underperform and disrespect the public's basic rights.)