Ok, but I wasn't talking about that at all.

The only point of my comment is it is very unrealistic to claim or expect no TSA employees not to break laws. ANY organization, public or private, with over 50k employees, will have some employees who violate law/policy. And then I said in the particular example brought up, follow up with supervisors why th procedure was performed, and if your not happy, follow up with management. You might be surprised with te results, if it turns out procedure was violated.

Ok, point by point.

I agree that some percentage of employees in any organization will likely break the law. No argument. However TSA protects their law breakers unlike other public employee organizations.

Your suggestion to follow up with a complaint/issue is another matter. I have tried doing exactly what you suggested and I will say the road blocks, walls and lack of cooperation from TSA was simply astounding. The only thing I became aware of was the apparent desire to protect TSA employees through any means possible.

The incident that I have talked about in the past that happened at FLL left such a bad taste in my mouth that little TSA does today will convince me that TSA is truly concerned with how citizens are treated.

In my opinion TSA does not have a working complaint resolution process. The lack of accountability within TSA is just to great to go unnoticed by HQ yet the same complaints are heard time after time.

So, if I get an "Alarm Resolution Pat Down" (as the fark user called it), it appears that the following applies:

1. SATTSO is correct - a TSO is not performing it
2. SATTSO is also, quite deliberately IMO, obfuscating the issue, as an LTSO or STSO is (key takeaway - to the public, a uniformed member of the TSA is a TSO, regardless of the amount of stripes on the epaulet)
3. The passenger is forced to permit this resolution procedure in a private room; sounds like a detention procedure to me, which would take us out of the realm of an administrative search, based on my recollection of the recent court cases against TSA

Actually, all someone has to do is submit that front-of-hand touching of sexual organs is not within the assigned duty.

Getting the crime prosecuted may be a challenge, but there is nothing that says I cannot sue a screener - the suit is valid and will need to be answered, even if it results in dismissal.

I think a valid test case is suing a TSA screener for emotional distress if the patdown exceeds (even by a smidgen), the standards and limitations laid out in the SOP manual.

I agree with you. The problem is that the case would hinge on the discovery of the pat down procedure. TSA has shown a willingness to hide behind SSI.

I would hope that if TSA refused to provide the procedure the judge would up hold the complaint and find the screener guilty.

Sadly I'm betting it would go the other way.

Frankly, the opt out pat down that I've received at DCA and ORD is more aggressive than the pat downs performed on EPW (enemy prisoner of war) that I have been trained on. There is no rational reason why I should be treated worse than an EPW to travel anywhere, much less my own country.

BS. You're not the only vet on TS&S and while you are free to exhibit your anti-TSA bias on your posts, at least stick to the truth in its ENTIRETY. Bottom line, EPWs are normally subjected to a rather brief search, much akin to the Terry Frisk (http://www.armystudyguide.com/conten...-a-detai.shtml), initially upon capture. Upon transfer to a detention camp (ie a SECURED AREA), they are STRIP SEARCHED! Read Army FM 3-19.40 Chapter 4.

Escort EPWs and their property.

Strip-search EPWs (by MP of the same sex) before entering the processing area unless prohibited by conditions.

Remove and examine property, place it in a container or a tray, mark it with a control number, and take it to a temporary storage area. (Some property may be returned in the processing line.)

Supervise the movement of EPWs to the next station.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-19-40/ch4.htm

While I can understand the frustration with the current screening methodology with the real and/or percieved privacy and health concerns and the very nature of Americans to find any search that in any way relates to that conducted on suspected criminals, EPWs, etc., as being offensive, please don't obfuscate the truth in order to make your case. :rolleyes:

TB

I guess this is why I'm advocating bring an administrative action against a screener. There are no courts involved (at this stage anyway), but you will cause pain and cause the TSA at some level (IG or Officeof Civil Rights) to investigate. The accused screener and their management will be interviewed as an activity of the investigation. And, you can help build a case against the screener.

I'm not confident that any agency or activity with ties to DHS or the Administration can investigate TSA and return a fair investigation

To many shenanigans going on at DHS.

This really isn't a matter of whether we agree or not.

After all, it was you that stated that you didn't understand why it was SSI if you are mandated to describe it to the selectee and you are mandated to conduct by the SSI procedure (thereby rendering it "public").

If you've ever been involved in classifying materials or handling classified materials, you know when and why classification might be used and how the information must be handled.

Assuming that you are describing things properly and completely, then either 1) the classification has been misused, or 2) anyone who tells the selectee how they will be frisked is disclosing SSI. If things are different than you describe, then that conclusion may not hold.

Having said that, SSI is technically not "classification" as S/TS/SCI/etc are. That gives a little more latitude in terms of protection, disclosure and potential harm.

There are procedures that describe reasons that material may *not* be classified - classification cannot be used to hide potentially embarrassing facts or to avoid PR problems, for example. Those rules are there for a reason: many government employees used classification to cover-up illegal, improper, or unpopular behavior. It is also true that many agencies "bulk classify" information without considering each element to determine whether it really is potentially harmful or not. I would not put it past some folks in the TSA management chain to overclassify stuff until/unless they're called on it... and the likelihood of someone lower in the chain raising the issue (or even knowing the classification rules) is slim.

And that may be. But I'd ask you to acknowledge that the high level of public contact that your personnel have (much greater than a PD, for example) and the unpopular things that you must do in a very stressful situation leave the perception that TSA has a problem. Add in the fact that TSA has access to valuable possessions, private information (what's in your wallet), and so forth - and at the same time screeners behave in an abusive manner (see the Philly events), it leaves an even worse perception. And perception is the traveler's reality, meaning that unless TSA employees engage in a polite, responsive, non-threatening manner it certainly leaves the impression that the TSA screeners regularly abuse authority.

I submit that yelling at passengers, threatening them with DY...T, barking orders, telling them that they have no rights, retaliatory searches and/or slowdowns of screening, disrespecting passengers and their possessions, etc, etc. don't exactly inspire confidence. You aren't drill sergeants, and passengers aren't Marine recruits.

Again, they may not truly be abusing authority, and in fact most of the screeners probably don't abuse authority, but enough do to leave a really bad impression. Likewise, when it is drilled into them that they ARE the authority, they can just tell folks that they are following orders.

I will believe that when I see it. Given my past experiences complaining about TSA issues, I believe it's more likely to be covered up (like the TSA PR contact person at IAD that replied to my complaint about a 25 minute line to access security with a claim that their observation of the CCTV system showed less than 5 minutes....). And given that it's SSI as to what a "proper" frisk is (meaning that it's awful hard to complain about an improper search, and even if you do, all the PR folks have to do is say "it's proper"), it makes it pretty hard to sustain a complaint.

But I am willing to be convinced.

Uhhh, wow. I just finished reading the entire thread and am totally blown away. Here are some points:

Richard Kenner – Wow dude, these have been the most concise and thoughtful posts I have seen to date. I stand in awe of them, completely. I just cannot compliment them enough. ^^^

Eyecue – Try and be just a bit clearer guy (initial post to thread). I understand what you are getting at, but many here wont. OTOH, post #57 was as clear and accurate as any I have seen. Well done sir.

Uavking – When I was a military policeman (way back when) I was trained extensively on pat-down procedures, for anyone prisoner of war or otherwise (civilians included!). The one that TSO’s give now is a cool breeze when compared to that. As a trainee I went through it many times, I can attest as to how effective and how painful it was.

TerminalBliss – Thanks for the quote. Not being former Army myself it’s kind of nice to see what one of the other services does.

Hedwigkin – Your plan, while entertaining, will only get you grief. And lots of it. Please think long and hard before you give it a try, and make sure you have an attorney on retainer.:cool:

harpodamann – Actually, he does know what he is talking about. @:-)

Commentary: I have followed all of the threads here on this subject and there has been one error that has been made consistently. Folks here are taking what they read or hear in the media and either taking it as “gospel” or are interpreting it to fit their own meanings. I watch TV as well as everyone else, I see the news reports, and I get a good laugh from it. Watching the reporters try and spin the new procedures into something evil or invasive or down-right intrusive. Its how they get ratings or sell news papers I suppose, but they are getting it wrong for the most part.

There is very little change in how TSO’s do pat-downs. Sorry, the changes are just not big enough for all of this furor and uproar, and I can say this because I am one of the one’s doing the pat-downs. Its just not that big a change, stop making it more than it is.

Yes, there is another pat-down that I am not allowed to do. Yes, its more invasive. No, its not a “strip search”. One of the things that people here are missing is that it is only done for “cause”. If you don’t know what that means then look it up.

You folks are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Take a deep breath and climb down off that horse. Relax, the new invasive pat down stops when the problem is figured out or when it is determined that it cannot be, figured out that is. And it happens so rarely that a report is generated that goes all the way to TSA HQ, each and every time. Its something HQ wants to keep a very close eye on, and as such if it becomes too big a problem or does not do what it is designed to do then they can make immediate changes to it.

Just stop buying hook line and sinker into the artificially generated hysteria. If you read the whole thread you can see who is generating and who is buying.

TSA made a mole hill into a mountain. Otherwise why did TSA decide to not inform the public before these changes were started. Why does TSA play word games about the various types of pat downs and when they will be used.

TSA as an agency cannot be trusted and in turn the people who work for TSA will have to bear that burden.

Whoa, ease up a bit on the metaphorical there Ron.

Then you have a problem, because ultimately you work for us, the American people, and the American people who fly are increasingly unhappy with what you are up to.

"Cause"
 

"Cause" for the super secret pat down is a positive ETD, hence the concentration on the crotch. Fighting the last war.