The QI stuff is being brought to us by the two unions that are available to TSA officers to join.
I believe the rest of the convesation is morphing into opinions

The problem with QI as I understand it is that it requires a demonstration that the actions taken by the government agent falls within the scope of duties. Since the TSA won't even provide the SOP to members of Congress would you expect the TSA to provide it in court just so that they could defend you?

Much of this conversation is opinions.

However, there's a difference between hyperbole, conjecture, guesswork, qualified opinion, and informed opinion.

I believe that your statements in regard to qualified immunity fall into the 'guesswork' realm. Possibly conjecture on the part of whomever provided you with the information that was provided.

Mine is informed and qualified -if I do say so myself - since I deal with this on a daily basis. I have cases venued in NY that have been dragging on for *years* while the city government spends money throwing clerks into depositions and trying to protect the LEOs. The courts don't like it much. And they don't return motions in the government's favor automatically. Or incredibly often.

I do appreciate you taking the time to try to explain the party line, but unfortunately, I don't buy it. I realize that you are just the messenger, but surely some of your co-workers (or even you?) have seen fit to speak up and say 'these requirements are bogus' in not so many words. What is your real, honest-to-goodness gut opinion of these "security requirements" (sic).

Oh, and Combat Medic?

You know the feeling is entirely mutual, darlin'. :smooch:

Eyecue, exactly what is your I.Q.?

I said in an earlier post that I would have to look when I got back to work. I can tell you that SSI is not only a TSA thing and it has been around for more than 30 years. So it predates TSA. We are getting a lot of stuff pertaining to real classified info at work so I could be mistaken.

That is SSI. HAHA Seriously I dont want to open that door and reap all the insults and personal attacks.

Here is one unions statement on liability for TSA searches:
http://www.cbpunion.org/TSA/Patdowns.aspx

You want to know my opinion on security that TSA performs? I will get beat up really bad on this forum for this but:
1. There is information that the public is not privy to and it supports TSA's position that the job is being done right and it works.
2. The stand that there has been no repeated events like 9-11 speaks for itself.
3. The basis that some of the things that are done by is untested. However current world events and practices dictate that some of the things that are done have no precedent. The fact that subversives from inside and outside the USA would like to create events that cause havoc and anarchy are real.

I believe that there are some very intelligent people on this board. There are also some people that like to do nothing more than create hate. There are personal attacks against TSA's individuals because everyone hides behind a psuedo name on here. There is nit picking on here over some of the most silly things. There is an us against them attitude. You had me open this door real wide with this post and now all I can do is stand by and wait for the hate.

That is all dependent on you following the SOP. As I've said that is the SOP that TSA won't provide to Congress. I do not think that the TSA will provide it to a judge just to protect you.

You've said yourself, however, that WBI's haven't found significant (or any?) weapons and we know they can't detect explosives So using them on the flying public serves what purpose, exactly?

I drink Pepsi every single day - and have never, ever been attacked by a mountain lion. Therefore, Pepsi keeps mountain lions away.

We call that Non Causa Pro Causa or - correlation does not imply causation. It's a logical fallacy.

Anything that removes rights from citizens of the US needs to have valid and objective evidence behind it. Allowing unscreened baggage into the hold of a commercial jetliner and declaring it 'safe' (we saw how well that works, huh?) while demanding that all passengers be strip-searched before boarding is ridiculous on its face. The Constitution has not been suspended. There are far less invasive ways to prevent issues.

BTW - which of the current TSA procedures used on passengers would've prevented 911?

I'll save you the trouble. The answer is 'none of them'.

And there were no 911-type events before the NoS's were introduced, either - so why are they suddenly a dire necessity?

I know there are some very intelligent people on this board. I know there are some reactionary people on this board. I know there are TSO's on this board who think that the TSA can do no wrong, and that WE, the flying public, are in some way to be considered a threat every time we walk into the airport. I've yet to see a TSO admit that anything the TSA orders them to do is overboard, beyond the pale, or unwarranted. I've yet to see a TSO admit that what we have is not security, but security theater - while other countries laugh at us for taking our shoes off. I've seen too many TSOs with serious customer service issues to believe that they are the exception, rather than the rule - I've been through too many airports where the TSOs clearly make up the rules as they go, and don't care what the TSA tells the flying public to believe that the TSOs really give a darn about following any rules - they know there is no recourse for the flying public, and all they have to say is DY...T to get the passengers to comply. Is it all of them? No. But it's clearly a sizable enough contingent as to be commonplace rather than rare.

My husband is former military, and held positions protecting all of our lives. There are aspects of his MOS that are still classified Top Secret - it's a little game we play where I ask him something to see if he's going to say 'I can neither confirm nor deny', and he always does. He knows from security and protecting our borders. This ain't it.

Edit to add: If it is determined that a TSA employee stepped over the line and the pat down was an assault just now much protection is your immunity going to provide?

Grabbing someons crotch is an assault.


If you want to drop the psuedo names why not lead by example?

just because you all keep telling yourselves you do a good job - does not make it so...

I believe that there are now just two pat downs.

If a persons Opts Out or alarms in some way then they get the new so-called "Enhanced" pat down.

If ETD testing of the screeners gloves after the "Enhanced" pat down shows an alarm the person will be required to complete a "Resolution" pat down before being cleared into the sterile area. This is just one example, I am sure there are other things that require this pat down that is so invasive that TSA forces the citizen behind closed doors.

Any TSO level seems to be able to conduct the "Enhanced pat down" while we have seen TSA posters say that a TSA cannot conduct the "Resolution" pat down which seems to indicated that two and three strip TSO's can conduct this higher level of pat down.

Also there is no doubt in my mind that if a person is directed to this "Resolution" pat down that TSA has clearly crossed the Administrative Search and that the person is in fact being illegally detained.

I am a bit taken aback by some of the claims of the resident TSA posters. The first was Ron's claim of "science fiction", when I was clearly being broad and not specific. Based on the other article about the dog, his flippant comment is all the more disturbing if the "front line" is only expecting the expected. It's not about what you know you know, or know you don't know. It's about what you don't know you don't know. And some of the other claims do not follow general logic. Although I suspect much of it is due to the fact that those really in the "know" aren't allowed to, or don't have time to, post on FT.

To be clear, the OP question was based on a standard opt out of the WBI with no alarming of the WTMD, Baggage X-Ray, or ETD. It seems that there is enough ambiguity in the implementation of the supposed SOPs by the TSO and in the sexual assault/battery laws of various states that beginning of a constitutional battle is on the horizon. Even with union backing and the DOJ, if it can be shown that a TSO, especially one with a history of sexual misconduct, inappropriately takes the opportunity to assault an innocent traveler a judge could make a sexual assault charge stick. This should be enough to change the procedures of WBI/pat-down. If it is such a concern about security that we require the hands of a government agent touch the genitalia of innocent travelers and children, then it should not be hard to lay out the concern to the American people in the form of a constitutional amendment so that we can decide once and for all if we want to cede the 4th amendment in the name of security.

Based on the lack of responses, it seems that the sexual assault path has not been taken. I'm sure it is only time. Additionally, the way we win this battle early is to win the war on words. Words that should be used in describing the current WBI and pat down procedures should include words like: "sexual assault", "violating/violation", "molestation", etc. along with mentions of children, veterans, pilots and the elderly. In my last 4 trips through security, I have made it a point strike up a conversattion in line discussing these methods. I urge others to do the same. I also now will be carrying the printouts from the other thread.


Let me be clear: Up until the WBI/Pat-down, I have had no problems with the standard visible methods of the TSA in my years as a CO Plat. However, the line has been crossed. If we don't want the line to move any more, we must push back.

I did not say the wbi has not caught any weapons. I believe it is in the same category as the wtmd. people dont come through that with metal weapons because they know what it is. The wbi can detect explosives because you can see them
I knew that would be your response.
I prefer BUT/FOR arguments. I dont know where you are going with this. You cannot compare cargo and passengers.
The two cannot be compared. The rules have changed.
underwear bomber.

What is the proper thing to do when the next attack is based solely on the attackers imagination and creativity? Can you discount anything?

The proper thing to do is invest in intelligence and investigation, not instituting security measures that protect against the attacks that have already been tried (and failed, btw). Banning printer cartridges? What a f* joke.

FYI, the printer cartridge plot was stopped with... wait for it... intelligence, NOT screening.

Would you support the line of reasoning that anything TSA can dream up should be used to screen people since TSA cannot discount anything?

That seems to be where we are today.

There must be limits and in my opinion TSA has clearly crossed the line of reasonable.

The public is starting to push back against what TSA is doing in a big way and if a TSA employee stands in the way will be crushed under the wheels of justice.

Except for explosives you can't see. So your allegation then is that the NoS has caught explosives? You're 100% certain that it would have caught the underwear bomber? That WAS a failed attempt, btw.

Ok. But for the fact that I drink a Pepsi every day, I would have been attacked by a mountain lion.

Nope. No matter how you word a logical fallacy, it's a logical fallacy.

You're right. Because cargo has no Constitutional rights, 100% of it should be scanned, 100% of the time. But it's not. Passengers have Constitutional rights, which should be respected 100% of the time.

YOU are the one who said that because of the TSA, we have not had a repeat of 911. However, none of the rules in place today would have prevented 911, so you're arguing facts not in evidence.

See above.

As others have mentioned-intelligence, not reaction.

BTW - do you believe that 100% of TSOs (and any other airport worker) should be subjected to NoS and bag searches every time they arrive at work, as a condition of employment? Why isn't THAT done? After all, a creative attacker could bribe or otherwise blackmail a TSO or worker to bring something into the sterile area. Is 100% of every item brought into the sterile area by vendors scanned and searched?

If not, than any passenger could pass through the most invasive scan and still pick up contraband on the other side that was brought in by a vendor or other worker.

I have had as clients several large casinos - casino employees must carry any personal items brought into the casino in clear plastic containers so that they were readily visible. How about implementing the same sort of things for sterile-area airline employees? Would you agree to that? Certainly, in the name of security, ALL of these should be implemented. After all, it will make us all safer.