TSORON(IF he is one)or ANY smurf being capable of stopping determined individuals who are well financed and carefully planned in their actions from committing an attack?, ROFLMAO

Well, if you, or your agency or your procedures to not know how to identify one, we are in much more danger that I thought.

You claim to be on the front line in the fight against terrorism and you are asking me, a stupid online commenter that lies and uses useless rhetoric to tell how to identify a terrorist?

Oh, wait, that was sarcasm. I almost missed it. I thought you were admitting that you really do not know what you are doing. My mistake. Sorry.

Hi TSORon. Thanks for responding to my post. Many of us on both sides can appreciate a thought provoking post. Why not just mention at the get-go that you're trying to provoke some conversation or even add a "What do you think?" before submitting it? I can understand not wanting to "taint" the post with your own perspective, but it would make create less confusion.

You have to admit, you do seem to be controversial around here. I'm not sure that's deserved but you know it's because you self-identify as TSO. I think that's a good thing but I can see it causes you some grief. There are still some people on FT who are interested to hear opinions from all sides. I can't speak for anyone else, but that's how I learn.

BTW, I don't mean to beat you up, but I had almost forgot about the condescending and combative use of sir until I read your post. I see you've been using it a lot lately. Saying "you sir" is normally proceeded by a good thrashing, often with a walking stick. It was a not uncommon practice in the 19th century. If you really want to be respectful, I'd drop the "you" part and just use Sir or use language like the rest of us "I'm sorry, but you're wrong....." "Thank you for your opinion, but..."

You may be a small cog in the great machine, but we all have the power to influence our environment in small ways. Most of us, myself included, have to lead by example. We all make small choices every day. I'm sure you do too. In your case, it might be the decision you make every day to say a kind word to someone (coworker or passenger) and being professional instead of snapping at someone and making their day difficult. I don't just mention this because you're in government, but there are many studies that show how a work environment can turn sour because of the lack of positive leadership by even one person.

BTW, "coming out of my lurker-hood"? Is that really what you think of me? And here I thought I've been so nice to you. I really see myself more as that flea in the carpet that jumps up and bites your ankle to remind you that I'm down here.

It is the way things were, not as they are. The people did speak. The people spoke in 1789 and 1974 and demanded that the Government operate in open light of day and within very clearly defined limits. Its present president promised open government operating not under the cover of darkness and secrecy, but in the clear light of open exchange of information and transparence. The majority of citizens have serious problems with the government's failure to operate in the open and with its actions in obfuscating these matters.

There is an important distinction. The people, in panic, spoke hastily and created your agency and DHS, its master. The nation had high hopes that this would strengthen our ability to deal with the root causes. We, the people, failed in creating your agencies. The old saw: Act in haste, repent in leisure has never been more true. It is our fault. Not yours. We must correct our hasty actions and we will.

HR 2200, the TSA Reauthorization Act, passed by the House last summer, had a number of provisions to curtail some of the more obvious and egregious abuses of citizens and businesses by your agency.

Included in these are:
Amdt 2: Limits the ability of TSA to bypass the Administrative Procedures act by limiting the duration of security directives to less than 180 days unless an NPRM has been issued for public comment, effectively ending "secret/sensitive security information" based rules and procedures.

Amdt 3: Established procedures for "alternative screening procedures" for individuals with TS clearances.

Amdt 4: Expedited screening for members of the Armed Services under orders and their families.

Amdt 5: Orders TSA to report to Congress within 6 months, complaints and claims against the TSA for loss of passenger property.

Amdt 8: Directs the TSA to use risk based competitive bidding on new grant programs, and if they fail to do so, requires the TSA head to explain to Congress why.

Amdt 10: Prohibits the use of WBI and requires TSA to provide Opt-Out as a matter of law. Further prohibits TSA from storing/copying/transferring images.

Amdt 12: Requires the TSA to begin an canine air cargo screening program.

TSORon,
This bill passed the House by a vote of 397-25. It has not yet been passed by the Senate, but only because other business kept the Senate occupied. But a bill with those amendments passing by that great a majority will likely be passed in similar form in the 112th Congress and the Senate will have more time to consider what it wants to do with your agency. Like an errant child, Congress has had to repeatedly remind your masters what their true mission is, and like a recalcitrant child, your agency persistently fails to listen and take corrective actions.

The people are about to speak again.

Well stated, thank you^

I'm sure the TSA does. I'm also sure the private sector firms found just as many in the years before, without the $8.2 billion annual price tag. Why would the Government Accountability Office say the TSA is no better than what we had before? Keep in mind that lax checkpoint security was not the cause of 9/11. That's something that "citizens who demand better security" forget when they fail to use critical thinking skills.

And don't forget that law enforcement professionals have about the same number of "Oh, crap!" moments at the airport as law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits when they try to go through the checkpoint with a firearm.

The TSA likes to trot out the number of weapons caught at the checkpoint every week on the front page of the website, giving the impression that we are under siege by a continuous stream of terrorists, but in fact the TSA has never caught a terrorist.



I don't believe anybody is being paid to post in this forum. Spreading disinformation, well that's another story...

Ron, as a public service I provide you with the following Terrorist ID Training Seminar. Part of me laments that this is necessary with all the taxes, fees and surcharges the flying public already pays, but as good 'ol Nappy says, "Security is everyone responsibility!!"

Please pay careful attention

THESE ARE TERRORISTS


THESE ARE NOT TERRORISTS

Now, go get 'em Tiger!

Class dismissed.

If terrorists have turned Americans against their government, it's because of what the government claims it has had to do to protect Americans from terrorism. That includes, but is not limited to, the heavy-handed and questionable measures employed by the TSA. And yes, if Americans are turning against their government because of creations like the TSA, the terrorists are winning. That's fairly obvious and has been mentioned numerous times by people on this forum.

And while it's not unreasonable to say that Americans expect a level of security from their government, and that many approve of and are willing to submit to TSA's practices, it is less reasonable to expect that there would be wholehearted acceptance of practices which are inconsistent, at times abusive, not obviously more effective than pre-9/11 measures, and which are designed and implemented seemingly without oversight or accountability.

So "anon" really hasn't provided any sort of revelation, and your claim that it has made you re-examine your thinking is more self-serving than anything. The post sounds more like something created by someone who thinks the TSA is being unfairly maligned for its indefensible policies, and who is cynically trying to deflect the criticism onto regular Americans.

Point, game, match. Next?

So where is the terrorist in that article?

The kid with the mask wasn't a terrorist. Neither did he break any laws that I know of.

No threat to aviation there. No threat to the other passengers. No threat to the destination country, unless wearing a disguise is some kind of security issue now that isn't caught by competent ID checking.

I suppose growing a beard could be considered "artful concealment" of ones face, and now is a violation of the secret SOP.

Roger Ebert: Where I draw the line...

It appears that not a single TSA agent has declined to perform a full-body pat down of airline passengers. That includes patting down small children. They're not patted down on a routine basis, but on some occasions they can be and they are. A child under 12, sometimes way under 12, may be required to remove outer clothing and be touched on such areas as the genitals.

Would you take this job? I don't believe I would. But it's worth reflecting that employment as a TSA agent is a good job in these hard times of high unemployment. The starting pay is $12.85 an hour, better than Wendy's for an employee who needs only a high school diploma. It goes higher. The 40 hours of training are paid for by the government. Agents are given uniforms, badges, "a choice of health care plans," and power.

When they were first hired, the job consisted of looking at x-rays of hand luggage, passing a wand near a passenger, and watching them walk through a metal detector, and sometimes performing a non-intimate pat down. Now they have to look at x-ray scans of the bodies of every passenger boarding an airline. Those who refuse the scanners or otherwise raise questions are given a full-body pat down. Until recently this involved using the backs of the hands. Now it involves what can only be described as a tactful grope.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010..._the_line.html

Finding Hidden Explosives - An Impossible Task...

There is nothing new about plastic explosive. In one form or another, it has been around since 1875, and most common plastic explosives in use today date back to the 1960s.

Evolving types of terrorist activity seem to suggest that terrorists are now more focused on blowing planes up with plastic explosive, rather than simply hijacking them. Accordingly, our airport security seeks to detect not just guns and knives but also explosives as well.

Unfortunately, the amount of explosive needed to destroy a plane is very small, and due to its plastic nature, it can easily be discreetly hidden on, around, or in one's body.

Detecting artfully concealed plastic explosive is impossible by all normal and socially acceptable methods.

http://www.thetravelinsider.info/sec...explosives.htm

Or as I've been hearing on the news lately ...

"This is the way the world is now. Deal with it."

Excuse me gentlemen. This isn't a game, it's an attempt at some meaningful dialogue about a relevant topic for travelers among members of FlyerTalk. Appreciate your support to keep it that way.

Thank you.