|
Originally Posted by doober
(Post 14331841)
^ ^
Kinda SOP for this poster, cut and run when the going gets rough. But way to go ignoring the fact that I made an offer to Halls to continue the conversation in PM - so much for me cutting and running, huh? How did you miss that. And if he had taken me up on the offer, he is/was more than welcome to post any thing I state. I do not believe this site or the arguments on it changes anyones mind. I have yet to see any evidence of that. Oh, you might find 1 post out of hundreds where someone has changed their mind, but I'm guessing you would have to look long and hard to find such a post (and no, I do not mean someone of the same general view point saying, "oh yeah, I didn't realize that - another reason TSA sucks"; that is common enough). I have really seen no post where someone displays a major shift in beliefs/attitude/views. And with that in mind, what is the point of beating a dead horse? Sure, we can do it, but why, to what end??? You will continue to believe what you believe, I will continue to believe what I believe, and thats pretty much it, mostly. I have said it before, so I will say it again: I am very content with saying my piece, allowing others to say their piece, and leaving it at that. But I guess that pisses some people off, huh? And I guess the prevailing attitude here is lets grind things into the dirt, and continue till the thread is closed or our comments are deleted. I simply do not agree with that (and no, I doubt you will be able to change my mind on that ;) ).
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 14331513)
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 But since we love to beat the dead horse around here... I am interested in a few things you state: You wrote: " The premise on which the questions are based on can be faulty, but not the act of raising the question" I did not say the "act of raising" a question is incorrect; I stated a question was incorrect. Two very different things. Then you ask me to cite sources, and to begin I will cite the study of propositional logic, which can either validate or invalidate an argument or question (I use the word incorrect, but to me, in this formal discussion, these words are interchangable). I am sure you have studied propositional logic, and I mean this seriously, not an insult; in college it is introduced as a basic level course in philosophy. Propositional logic states that assumptions (propositions) can be invalid, which makes a statement/question invalid or incorrect. This is well known and accepted. RG's assumption regarding what I believe or thought was incorrect. I simply stated what others had said, to which I do not actually agree, and she asked me to respond to question she post, asking what my personal response would be. And I udnerstand the reasoning for her mistake; I had stated very briefly that I would run with what others had said (and I then did not specifically state I did not agree with this particular assumption) and post my own senerios. So her question assumed I belive a certain way, which was incorrect, and asked me to respond. I responded by stating her question was incorrect; and it was incorrect, according to propositional logic (hey, you asked me to cite my sources, this is why I'm bringing this up). Entire statements and questions can be said to be incorrect using this form of logic. No do you really want to continue this conversation? Personally, I do not, as I do not see the point (other than you attempting to argue with a TSA employee).
Originally Posted by clrankin
(Post 14333583)
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.) And you are wrong about this statement: "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." If we (TSA) search for something outside of WEI, we are not treading on thin ice; we have BROKEN it. We are not allowed to search for anything other than WEI. However, we are not on thin ice if we report something we come across, as our courts have ruled. There is no question about this, well, except for the people on this cite. If a court decides that we were not specifically searching for something, whatever illegal activity we report to the LEO's will be allowed in court; if not, it will be thrown out.
Originally Posted by T-the-B
(Post 14333493)
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. The other state I wonder about is this: "TSA employees, taken as a whole, have demonstrated that they are incapable of exercising sound, adult judgment." I disagree entirely. The economy is down, less people flying because of it, but on average over 1.5 to 1.8 million people fly in the US each day. I would argue most of those experiences are good, and that "taken as a whole" TSA has shown it has good judgement (talking TSO's here). I am sure you will disagree, but I simply have not seen proof of what you state. |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 14333783)
No, I do not see myself as boxed in; you know very well we had a conversation just recently deleted. What is the point of having a conversation off topic only to have it removed? I see it as a wasted effort (btw, the last conversation we had deleted I am not even sure if I had a chance to see you last post, so if I did not, you wasted your time replying to me, correct?).
|
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 14333822)
However, we are not on thin ice if we report something we come across, as our courts have ruled. There is no question about this, well, except for the people on this cite. If a court decides that we were not specifically searching for something, whatever illegal activity we report to the LEO's will be allowed in court; if not, it will be thrown out.
This is another reason why if I ever sit as a juror on a case involving criminal charges brought against someone where the evidence is in any way, shape, or form associated with TSA my verdict is automatically "not guilty", regardless of the facts. |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 14333783)
[Halls120] wrote: "The premise on which the questions are based on can be faulty, but not the act of raising the question"
I did not say the "act of raising" a question is incorrect; I stated a question was incorrect. Two very different things. |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 14333822)
If we (TSA) search for something outside of WEI, we are not treading on thin ice; we have BROKEN it. We are not allowed to search for anything other than WEI.
1. Allowing screeners to steal from passengers 2. Expanding the government dragnet to search for other things, like little bags filled with white powder |
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 14334163)
Right. :rolleyes:
Originally Posted by clrankin
(Post 14334216)
One other question... what weapon, incindery, or explosive do you expect to find in people's wallets when rifling through them (as other posters here have mentioned in other threads)? To me, the whole going through wallets routine sounds like a thinly veiled excuse for:
1. Allowing screeners to steal from passengers 2. Expanding the government dragnet to search for other things, like little bags filled with white powder
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 14334201)
A question is not something that can be correct or incorrect. It's not a statement of fact. It's not an assertion. It's a question.
Originally Posted by clrankin
(Post 14334188)
So essentially an admission that TSA is nothing other than a dragnet for finding things that a real law enforcement agency wouldn't be able to search for without a warrant. Niiiice.
This is another reason why if I ever sit as a juror on a case involving criminal charges brought against someone where the evidence is in any way, shape, or form associated with TSA my verdict is automatically "not guilty", regardless of the facts. But I notice you do not address what our courts have said, and fail to attempt to argue on what legal grounds they are incorrect. |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 14333865)
Right now only concerned with a few things you state, one of which is you seem to be saying, if I as a TSO, goto the airport on my off time, out of uniform, and stay inside the non-sterile area, I have free reign to steal as I wish, avoiding the LEOs, but with no concern that a TSA employee should report me? You would actually want the TSO's to ignore what I'm doing even if they see me and know full well that I'm stealing? Did I understand you correctly?
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 14333865)
The other state I wonder about is this: "TSA employees, taken as a whole, have demonstrated that they are incapable of exercising sound, adult judgment."
I disagree entirely. The economy is down, less people flying because of it, but on average over 1.5 to 1.8 million people fly in the US each day. I would argue most of those experiences are good, and that "taken as a whole" TSA has shown it has good judgement (talking TSO's here). I am sure you will disagree, but I simply have not seen proof of what you state. I don't know of a way to quantify and measure things like "screener arrogance", "rudeness", "blind stupidity" and the like; however, from the perspective of 35+ years of business travel those qualities seem to be much more prevalent than in the pre-TSA era. I seriously doubt that any of the pre-TSA contractors would have ever: 1) detained a passenger and told him the 1st amendment did not apply at the screening checkpoint, 2) detained a passenger for "excessive cash", 3) detained a passenger and have her arrested for carrying medically necessary food for her elderly mother, 4) effectively exiled a U.S. citizen, 5) force a woman to remove nipple rings, 6) detained a passenger for carrying flash cards in Arabic. Are you beginning to get the picture? Can you understand that each of these incidents was an egregious violation of a passenger's dignity, not to mention his civil rights? I can assure you that for every story that makes the news there are a multitude of similar ones which go unreported. There are an even greater number of lesser indignities, harassment and violations that occur every day. It would be bad enough if incidents like this were the result of rogue employees who were exposed and disciplined. However; far from being punished, re-trained or required to apologize to their victims, many of the offending TSA employees are commended for exercising "an abundance of caution". I fully recognize that not every TSA employee is stupid, lazy, incompetent, arrogant or looking for an excuse to abuse the public. I do not intend to tar all TSA employees with that broad a brush. Yet, sad experience has convinced me that the agency is out of control and that it tolerates, if not rewards, out of control behavior by its employees. That is why I think that "taken as a whole" it has demonstrated a marked lack of good judgment and honest concern for passengers' rights. I doubt that I will convince you to change your opinion or that you will convince me. However; there is one thing that could make me start to change my mind. The next time I witness a supervisor or fellow employee correct improper behavior by a TSA screener on the spot, in front of the victim, and proffer a sincere apology I will think that TSA has begun to address its internal problems. Of course the next time I see that happen it will be the first time. |
Originally Posted by T-the-B
(Post 14334721)
The problem here is that I mis-read your original post. You posited a TSA employee committing theft on his off-duty days. I mis-read that as a TSA employee observing a crime on his off-duty days. I apologize for my mistake.
I suppose this is one of those times that we'll just have to agree to disagree. It is, after all, a matter of interpretation and opinion. Each of us is limited by our own experience. I began flying on business during a time when one simply walked from the ticket counter directly to the gate with no screening at all. Later I experienced security put in place by the airlines and conducted by Argenbright and other similar contractors. Now we have TSA. I don't know of a way to quantify and measure things like "screener arrogance", "rudeness", "blind stupidity" and the like; however, from the perspective of 35+ years of business travel those qualities seem to be much more prevalent than in the pre-TSA era. I seriously doubt that any of the pre-TSA contractors would have ever: 1) detained a passenger and told him the 1st amendment did not apply at the screening checkpoint, 2) detained a passenger for "excessive cash", 3) detained a passenger and have her arrested for carrying medically necessary food for her elderly mother, 4) effectively exiled a U.S. citizen, 5) force a woman to remove nipple rings, 6) detained a passenger for carrying flash cards in Arabic. Are you beginning to get the picture? Can you understand that each of these incidents was an egregious violation of a passenger's dignity, not to mention his civil rights? I can assure you that for every story that makes the news there are a multitude of similar ones which go unreported. There are an even greater number of lesser indignities, harassment and violations that occur every day. It would be bad enough if incidents like this were the result of rogue employees who were exposed and disciplined. However; far from being punished, re-trained or required to apologize to their victims, many of the offending TSA employees are commended for exercising "an abundance of caution". I fully recognize that not every TSA employee is stupid, lazy, incompetent, arrogant or looking for an excuse to abuse the public. I do not intend to tar all TSA employees with that broad a brush. Yet, sad experience has convinced me that the agency is out of control and that it tolerates, if not rewards, out of control behavior by its employees. That is why I think that "taken as a whole" it has demonstrated a marked lack of good judgment and honest concern for passengers' rights. I doubt that I will convince you to change your opinion or that you will convince me. However; there is one thing that could make me start to change my mind. The next time I witness a supervisor or fellow employee correct improper behavior by a TSA screener on the spot, in front of the victim, and proffer a sincere apology I will think that TSA has begun to address its internal problems. Of course the next time I see that happen it will be the first time. And I agree we can pleasantly disagree and move on. No problems there. Interesting, though, when I try to do something similar, I'm accused of cutting and running... (not by you, though!). Oh, and I have corrected a few other TSOs on the spot; just so you know. Whether you believe me is another story! |
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 14334842)
Oh, and I have corrected a few other TSOs on the spot; just so you know. Whether you believe me is another story! |
Originally Posted by T-the-B
(Post 14335071)
I have no reason to doubt you. I do have to ask though, when you corrected other screeners "on the spot" was it also in front of the passenger in question and did the passenger get an apology?
Note, that on other threads - some time ago actually, I have said I will not apologize for doing my job, if I do it correctly, and I stand my that. And I have brought up issues like this to the STSO so that they can brief individuals to help ensure proper application of SOP. Was it carried through with? I do not know. I have no authority there, other to let management know if there is any confusion on the floor. |
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 14334201)
A question is not something that can be correct or incorrect. It's not a statement of fact. It's not an assertion. It's a question.
|
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 14336578)
Arguing this with the OP is not much different than beating one's head against the wall. :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by SATTSO
(Post 14336803)
Same can be said of many people here, halls....
TSA screening is much more invasive. TSA employees are less professional in the way they interact with the public. What is it about TSA that got it this way? My impression is that TSA has become in a very short time Americas version of the Stasi. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 14336913)
There has been some lively discussions over the last weeks, but one thing I would like to know is why TSA treats paying customers of the airlines worse than the Bureau of Prisons treats visitors who visit inmates?
Seriously, though ... it's apples and oranges. The types of threats posed are completely different in those two contexts; it's not fair to compare them. (Of course, that's no excuse for treating visitors to either facility with disrespect.) |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 14336913)
There has been some lively discussions over the last weeks, but one thing I would like to know is why TSA treats paying customers of the airlines worse than the Bureau of Prisons treats visitors who visit inmates?
TSA screening is much more invasive. TSA employees are less professional in the way they interact with the public. What is it about TSA that got it this way? My impression is that TSA has become in a very short time Americas version of the Stasi. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:29 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.