not at all unlike the screener that the TSA employ currently.

Olfaction is my business and before the TSA existed, the FAA hired me to teach gerbils to odor detect explosives (in checked in luggage) - after the Lockerbe Pan Am catastrophe. Took their money willingly but knew that all the bad guys have to do is seal the expolsives in airtight containers (or shrink wrap) and odor detection is worthless.
If the TSA is actually pursuing the odor detecting dog thing, then they really are less intelligent than the Bad Guys.

As mentioned above, it seems the TSA is always one step behind the terrorists.

Who cares? Since the dogs will have nothing to find the point is moot. At least the dog doesn't want to look at naked pics or feel up crotches all day. Passengers will be happy due to the dual benefits of not being groped/irradiated and the dog providing the security theater.

I'm not so sure about that ;) My neighbors dog seems to have a fascination with my crotch :p

So what TSA really needs is to return the puffers to the screening lanes after working out the faults or operator errors.

ETP, ETD, WTMD, HHMD, perhaps sniffer dogs and only after all of that is not good enough then a pat down.

Are you looking for the actual answer, the facts, or are you wanting another cookie-cutter "I hate TSA" answer?

Dogs are great but they have limitations they can be used for about 20 minutes and after that they lose focus,
Also they are not very consistent they have good and bad days.
you use a dog to pinpoint the exact person / location of drugs or explosives after you have a general suspect located with other methods.

Please - provide one, two or all three if you can. It's a very very common question.

If you read my posts, you would see that I don't hate the tsa. I just want to see that my tax dollars are being used wisely. I don't know, usually people want a good return for money spent? Is it wrong to expect the government to at least try to make sure that what they are doing really makes a difference? Is it wrong to expect the government to make wise decisions on how they spend money on airport purchases in this current economy? I honestly don't believe that the body scanners will stop terrorists any more than using dogs. I'm just an average young person who sees airport security as security theatre. If I think that, what do the actual bad guys see?

If you have nothing to hide.....

Starting today on the Connecticut commuter trains and Amtrak

From - http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/l...120690874.html

The news this morning said golden labs, but the picture was of a German Shepard, so not sure what they will be using.

So the answer is apparently they can be used to check 750 to 1,000 people boarding an afternoon commuter train, but not at airports.

Color me confused. Gonna put a huge dent in the weekend "lets pack up some drugs and head to the country" crowd :rolleyes:

Re: Why no dogs?
 

>> Can someone please explain to me why we can't use dogs to sniff for explosives at the airports? <<

It'd be more effective, cheaper, less intrusive... and dogs are cuter besides.

But man, not to be cynical, I think the answer is pretty obvious:

Because there isn't a big corporation out there that stands to make billions of dollars through the deployment of beagles.

The body scanners are not making us safer. But they are making somebody very wealthy, rest assured.


PS

www.askthepilot.com

As GH said (also in a private message, not sure why but there you have it), they are cuter than most TSO’s. Not all for sure, I have seen some really ugly dogs working as BDT’s, but for the most part they have that warm fuzzy thing going for them. :)

Other than that he is pretty much off-base. Operating a Bomb Detection Team is quite expensive, far more so than a handful of TSO’s. And over time even more so than AIT systems. An effective BDT needs weeks of training, ongoing training, special facilities, special medical care, and much more. BDT teams are usually about 70% effective, and still require that the human part of the team know what their partner is telling them. They also have a limited service life each day. Usually in the area of 3-4 hours in any 12, and usually at best 30 minutes at any one stretch. They also have significant limitations on deployment. Crowded environments reduce their effectiveness to nearly zero, far too many distractions for the animal, and airports tend to be crowded environments. Aircraft fuel, being petroleum based, also affects the animals sense of smell, reducing their effectiveness even further.

Only one of these things affects AIT systems, and that is the operator learning to recognize what the device is telling them. And of course the occasional mechanical breakdown, but that is common with any man made device. There are far more effective places for BDT’s to be used, and the constant bustle of an airport is not one of them.

Metal detectors detect metal. The threat against an aircraft has far more dimensions than that posed by metal objects. Hence the need for AIT systems. As many have pointed out, hijacking is a significantly reduced threat now days, armored cockpit doors and reactive passengers pretty much make that a given (not that it is not attempted every now and again), the threat now is more closely related to explosives or biological/chemical exposures. Metal detectors just cannot detect those. AIT systems can, as long as the operator is on their game.

It has already been proven that things can get pass the TSA screeners who are viewing the images and it may not have anything to do with training. It may be simply because they yawned, sneezed or looked away from the monitor screen for a second. Impossible to stop a TSA screener from doing those things. The only way to solve that problem is to make the NOS/WBI read the image itself and find the suspicious items, but that isn't full proof either since a machine can also miss something due to mechanical failures. So really the TSA screener or the NOS/WBI neither one is all that effective since they both can let dangerous items get pass them and onto the plane.

All of that is absolutely correct. Humans and just that, human.

But if we take as a given that some form of checkpoint security is required at airports, how do we do such a thing without humans being involved?

It cant be done. Lets be honest, it just cant be. So, we do the best we can. The folks here spend hours second guessing that every day, mostly from ignorance. As I have attempted to show, security is a very complicated business, and few without experience or training can discuss the subject intelligently. The argument about dogs is just one case in point, some here claim that they are the answer to the TSA and all of our procedures and equipment, and they make these arguments completely from ignornace about the subject.

Because the threat comes in so many forms, and from so many different directions, the only intelligent way to address the threat is with a comprehensive and layered approach. Thats a basic idea, the very first one that must be acknowledged before the conversation can go any further.

Nope, it's not complicated. We can pretend to provide security much cheaper with a cute doggy that doesn't find explosives, as a slovenly bunch of overpaid rejects that doesn't find explosives.

Is it bad that I laughed at this?!!! It was a long day at work today and I even brought home stuff to finish. It's been a long evening staring at paper.

Now, I don't hate the tso's and don't think all of them are "rejects". I do have to say that all the tso's that have yelled at me for trying to opt out were all very overweight. No offense or anything. In college, it was cool to go to the gym and work out so maybe I'm used to a different standard. As to the TSA pay salary and job security (even more when they unionize), it's hard to observe and not get mad that our tax dollars could be spent on more effective security methods? Now, this is more the fault of the people higher up, not your average tso. Most recent college grads struggle to find jobs, let alone one that is secure and permanent. Many college students worked hard to earn their degrees and I'm sure some of them make less per hour than the tso's.

Explosive sniffing dogs is not a fool-proof system.

It takes a lot to train the dogs (including having specific scents that they respond to). They also cannot work for long periods of time, meaning you would need a big pack of dogs per airport to handle the traffic at all the checkpoints.

unlike the big pack of over-weight, under-performers that inhabit the checkpoints currently?

I understand what you are saying, but it isn't the human factor that is the problem. It isn't having security at the airport that is the problem. It is the fact that a policy has been put in place where the passengers can be mistreated and those who are in charge don't seem to care.

I'm not picking on you. So don't think I am. But when the new screening requires the hand of a total stranger to be ran up ones inner thighs until that hand meets resistance and stuck in the waistband of pants and skirts and breast be touched. Some of us don't like that we are being forced into a situation where we are having to submit to something that from a small child we have been told that we don't let strangers do. It doesn't matter how nice the TSA screener is. It doesn't matter if if they are following SOP and doing everything correctly.

Pistole and Napolitano put this in place and what most don't get is that when you walk into that airport and get into the line at the security check point.

The fear of the unknown takes over and the fact that Pistole and Napolitano decided that the passengers should not be allowed to know what is going to happen to them is a big mistake. It makes it a stressful situation that can cause problems when suddenly you have a TSA screener who has a attitude and a passenger who is stressed and it turns into an incident.

If there was more openess and honesty from the higher ups who implemented these new policies when it comes to screening the passengers and they would treat us as human beings instead of objects that have no feelings.

You all might find that we aren't as crazy as some make us out to be. It is just that we don't like the attitude that TSA/DHS seems to have of we can do what ever we want to you, but we don't have to tell you what we are going to do to you and if you don't like it well we don't care.

Would you or your wife go to or take you child to a doctor or a hospital for a procedure. If the doctor or the hospital had secret rules where procedures were considered SSI and they wasn't willing to tell you what they were going to do to you, or your child before they actually started the procedure. Would you be that trusting to go along with that situation without thinking those are some creepy rules and thinking that the information should be available before the procedure gets started not when they are about to do it to you, your wife, or child.

Because that is what we are being asked to do when we go to the airport to fly on a plane. We are suppose to just trust everything that is being done to us without question because Pistole and Napolitano have decided that this is what they have come up with to keep the bomb and other dangerous items off the plane. But we weren't allowed to have any say in the decision they made about the things the screeners were going to be allowed to do to us, because they did it in secret and they don't understand why we are having problems with these new procedures.

I will say this... The we can't tell you because the terrorist will beat the system is ridiculous to me. Because if and when the terrorist decides to beat the system. All they have to do is pay someone, alot of money or threaten someones family, who is allowed to by pass security because they are someone who is exempt from being screened. Because they are considered so high up that they are considered totally trust worthy simply because of who they are.

But would they be so trust worthy if someone was holding a gun to their wife and children's head and told their family would be dead if they didn't get the bomb on the plane.

If everyone and every thing isn't being screened the exact same way the passengers are being screened. The back door is standing wide open. So saying that what they are doing to us is going to keep the bomb off the plane. Isn't going to be successful when a terrorist decides to slip through the back door with the flashing big neon sign that says Terrorist Enter Here.

They either screen everything that gets near or on the plane up to its resistance, in it's pants etc, or they need to back off just abit on the passengers.

<No quote provided for brevity.>

+100000000 ^^^
Thank you, Lara21!!!!

Of course, I hope you realize that your arguement contains way too much common sense for You-Know-Who to take seriously. :rolleyes: Just sayin...

Yes but i suspect a dogs failure rate would be a lot lower and more consistent then the current batch of slobs that claim the world(detect micro expressions, explosives, weapons and incendiaries, etc) but in reality couldnt find there own posterior with a roadmap, flashlight. Then again im least likely to throttle a dog then I am a mental lightweight with a chip on there shoulder who steps out of line. At least i know if the dog steps out of line that it will be put down unlike the mental light weight that will be "retrained" when in reality needs to be removed post haste.

First and foremost, I want to say “Thank you” for the interesting conversation.

Your point is only valid if one accepts your definition of “mistreated”. Mistreated is a subjective term, especially when applied to how one person acts towards another. The search techniques (frisking) I was taught as a military policeman would be considered mistreatment in a civilian context (maltreatment is even closer), but were fully within policy and procedure in the venue and context of the duties I performed.

If the TSO’s at the airport follow procedure and policy as they are supposed to, no one gets mistreated. Folks like yourself may feel that they have been, but again that’s a subjective call and those rarely have anything to do with reality. The reality is that a specific level of security at the checkpoint is required because of the past threats and the one’s that the intelligence community tell us are on the horizon, and to achieve that level TSA has designed our procedures and policies. Those policies and procedures continue to change because the threat changes, and as many have pointed out we are far more of a reactive agency than a proactive one. Both have their place, and TSA’s is reactive, and we will leave the proactive to other government agencies better able to meet those demands.

I didn’t think you were. Those who do make it pretty obvious.

Typically if one prepares themselves for the checkpoint then they have no problems. Millions of people go through them every day without every encountering issues of significance, and of those who do have problems it is in most cases because they just didn’t think. The rules are pretty obvious, they are posted prior to the checkpoint, they are available online, they are announced on the airport PA systems, then are sometimes even posted at the ticket counters. It only takes a moment or four to read them. Understanding them is for some reason quite different. Liquids for example. Believe it or not water is a liquid, yet even to this day we have people who just cant seem to grasp that they are not allowed to transit the checkpoint with it in containers larger than 3.4 ounces. That rule has been in place for quite some time, yet we collect bottles of water every few minutes. It’s a rule, plain and simple. Just like the rules of the road. Exceed the speed limit and you chance getting a ticket. Why that speed limit exists is totally beside the point, its one of the rules. The rule could be that no men with pink hats with blue flowers on them can transit the checkpoint (as silly as that may be), but it could be a rule that we would have to enforce. “Why” is not up to me. But I’m reasonably confident that there would be a fairly good reason for it.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. The technology has been in the works since long before either of those individuals worked for the TSA. In fact the main portions of the AIT systems have been around for more than a decade, nearly 2 decades. Blaming those two public figures is convenient, but far less than honest.

Again, airport screening has been around a very long time. Since the 1970’s. And in that time the technology and procedures have continued to mature. Just as they continue to mature to this very day. Anyone who comes to the airport and thinks that they will not be screened is intentionally fooling themselves.

Openness and honesty are exactly what one gets when dealing with the TSA. The problem is that a certain segment of society think they know more about what TSA should be doing then the TSA does. And they consistently prove their ignorance every time they challenge what they are being told. Of course TSA can’t be totally open about everything, there is another segment of folks out there that would use that information to do us harm. Some information must be closely held, and that fact has been around since long before the TSA was ever envisioned. The concept was not even invented in the United States, but long before the “New World” was even discovered.

Crazy? Some maybe, but for the most part it’s just plain old ignorance (the actual meaning of the word, not the insulting context). Our policies and procedures are strongly vetted by experts in many fields. And the public’s dislike for something must be weighed against the advantage of doing it. People didn’t like us taking the old standard BIC lighters back when TSA began. That policy was reviewed and determined to be of little value. Hence the reason people can now take that BIC on their flight with them. Same with Nail Clippers, and liquids, and many other things. We don’t get everything right, but we are trying. Yet there are certain policies and procedures that just are not going to go away. And some people will always disagree. We cant please everyone, and we know it, and those that are displeased will always find places to vent their dislikes and hatreds, like here for example.

Like it or not, there is not a single large institution anywhere that does not have its secrets. Hospitals are no exception. They never tell you all the gory details of what they are going to do, and sometimes they don’t even tell you why. A doctor that you have met maybe three times (if that) is going to stick a knife into your guts and remove your spleen, has your life in his hands literally, yet you trust him. He does not tell you about the clamps, the cauterizations, the drugs, the blood on the floor, the “oops” that occasionally occur, yet you trust him. Why? Because of an oath he took years ago?

Again you are incorrect. You had your say. You had the opportunity to vote for the administration that is currently in power. If you chose not to vote then that is your own fault, but just in case you voted for this administration then you really have no right to complain about who they hire.

That’s because of a lack of information. You have no idea what they are planning, what they may be willing to do to get another 9/11 type of attack in, or even the culture that has spawned the folks capable of doing things like that. I don’t know much about them either, but I do get some of the information that you don’t.

Theories abound about how to beat the system. They are as plentiful as blades of grass, and usually about as worthy.

So, trust no one? Allow no one near a plane? That’s the only way we are ever going to prevent another commercial aircraft from being used as a weapon.

No, sorry, there has to be a balance between absolute security and absolute anarchy. TSA believes that we have achieved that balance, for the most part. It aint perfect, but then again nothing is.

And if that resistance happens to be plastic explosive? Should we stop because of an undefined or highly variable social more that can be exploited?

Who wrote this for you, Ron?

He\\ Yes you should stop.

The statistical risk is much less than the statistical risk from the NOS's.
The statistical risk rises elsewhere, like in the security line or baggage claim.
NOBODY has any appreciation for being groped.
People want to be free in a free country.
Some danger comes with freedom, like handguns for instance.
Some Americans understand the 4th amendment.
Some Americans accept that freedom is dangerous.
The hostilities will continue to grow on both sides.
TSA has gone over the top, and tens of thousands of Americans know it.
These "screenings" are illegal, and tens of thousands of Americans know it.
The revolution is growing.
Attacks specifically against TSA by otherwise lawful citizens will grow.
The 4th amendment will ultimately win.
Or America will cease to be the LAND OF THE FREE, forever.

I'll be the guy in the back cheering!

Yes you should stop because there are other procedures to find plastic explosives on a person that does not require the hand up the inner thigh until the hand meets resistance.

I think Lara's definition of mistreatment reasonably includes the act of someone's unwanted hand being stuck in her crotch

What you did and were taught as an MP is irrelevant to this discussion. We're not in the military.

We don't know what that official procedure is. Does it involve touching of the genitals, anus, and breasts or does it not? Folks here are posting that they are being touched in those areas. That is mistreatment.

Oh? So those fellows who have posted that their genitals were manipulated around in an SOP, those women who's labia were hit hard, touched firmly, had their clitoris rubbed over in an SOP, all those folks can be dismissed? Getting your balls racked is not a subjective call. If it happened, it happened, and the jerk who did it should be fired and prosecuted.

Yeah, the same folks who assured us that there were WMD in Iraq are telling you that little 6-year old girls in skin tight clothes are fearful security risks and need a full body patdown.

and badly. You cannot design a search policy that violates
the very things the government is sworn to protect. You cannot subject innocent people to strip searches and genital, breast, and butt exams when those are forbidden in the very structure of the government, when these are so reprehensible to those being imposed upon. You have to design a security screening process that respects the country you live in, and the people you live with. The TSA procedures do neither.

The tech has been developed over years. It could have been deployed sooner than it was. It took moral misfits in three locations, POTUS, DHS secretary, and TSA administrator to pull the trigger on whatever specious grounds they could come up with to deploy these new procedures.



Not much has changed between 1970's and now, except for the electronic strip search machines. What has changed are the people, who have deteriorated significantly in their character from those times. The TSA would never have dared tried to pull this scope and grope trick had it been around back in the 70's. Now they think they are getting away with it.

oh, you mean all your hidden procedures? this is not open and honest.

No, we know more about what you should NOT be doing than you do. You should not be strip searching the American people, and you should not be running your hands over our genitals, buttocks, and breasts.


We notice that we are getting sexually imposed upon by TSA screeners' particularly noxious behavior. If anyone is ignorant, it is the TSA being ignorant of what common decency entails and what is required of them as an agency accountable to those the TSA serves.

They are not experts, they are human rejects. Anyone who thinks that strip searching innocent people and feeling over their private parts is acceptable has something wrong with them.

yes, the old fallback. How mad with they get? If sufficient numbers don't object, let's do it. What's right and wrong never enters into it.

They will if you ask them. Many hospitals and doctors do routinely and have you sign off that you have been advised of the nature of the treatment and possible outcomes. Only idiots don't inquire into what is going to happen to them. And what does this have to do with you folks? NOTHING.


So the 60 million people who didn't vote for Obama deserve what they get because of the 69 million who DID vote for him? Great logic. and convenient. It absolves you from any responsibility for your participation in the work of the TSA in harming the citizens of this country.




No, of course not, Don't stop. Just take our clothes all the way off and cavity search us. Don't let our mores stop you, or our feelings, our dignity, our reactions, or anything from us stop you.

Back to the dogs for a second
 

Knowing that security requires a "multi-layer approach" , I feel the deterret effect of dog/handler teams wandering (actively seeking or not) around a terminal cannot be underestimated.

I am far more comfortable in European airports/train stations that have strolling soldiers/LEOs with AK-47s and dogs than the current rigid, invasive and predictable TSA process. Throw a metal detector with the bag screen and IMO we've reached a reasonable risk threshold.

The TSA screening process is simply polarizing now. Shrink the staff and make it more nimble.

Call it "continuous improvement". :)

I agree.

Oddly enough, I often read complaints from Americans about the military presence at the Marne-la-Vallée train station because they think that it 'ruins the Disney atmosphere'. :confused:

I think that it is what one is used to seeing; for those of us who travel in places around Europe and Asia it isn't unusual but I do think that it is still very unusual to many North Americans to see such a visible presence.

This is one of many reasons why I get so frustrated with what I perceive to be the TSA mentality. The thrust of your argument is that the rules are the rules, they exist for a reason, and we shouldn't be so quick to question. Your BIC/nail clipper argument seems to undercut that argument. Besides, I am not one to shut off my brain and never question authority. I think many of the checkpoint rules are nearly as stupid as your pink hat argument.

Please don't spin the thread.

The doctor is not in a government-sponsored position of authority. Besides, every doctor I've met has been willing to share whatever information I've wanted to know about what s/he's going to do to me. I don't need to know the gory details, but I can get them if I so desire.

But this nation was founded on the principle of limited government. I view it as not just my right, but my duty to question. I cannot and will not just trust that everything is dandy in TSA-ville. No doubt I'd be hearing the same stuff out of you if I had been questioning the BIC policy shortly after its implementation in 2005.

If a doctor commits an "oops", seeking redress is much easier than seeking redress against the TSA and the federal government, which has the force of the law behind it.

And I won't even begin to get into the numerous examples of the bogus and self-serving "TSA-can't-tell-you-why-you-can't-do-[pick your verb]-because-it's-SSI" arguments that are at odds with stated policy. See Phil Mocek, this incident at Dulles airport (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQqM_B6IVwg), etc.

While the above quote may first appear to be tangential to your larger arguments, I think it's actually quite revealing. A citizen's First Amendment rights are not predicated on who they voted for, or even whether they voted at all. Have you actually voted for someone who you agreed with 100% of the time? If not, does that mean you never complained when that politician acted in a manner contrary to your views? You just decided to shut up? That explains a lot. A whole lot.

And your supporting documentation for that would be….?

And on the toilet, in bed, in front of your computer (the list is endless), so we should do away with anything that mitigates risk of any kind?

And your supporting documentation for that would be….?

Dead men are not free.

Handguns are not dangerous.

And when you begin to you will let us know, right?

Yes, but not needlessly so.

No, only one side. I am not hostile. I have far too much to do to be hostile.

Of the 300,000,000 or so. An interesting percentage.

And your supporting documentation for that would be….?

Tis the nature of thing to grow, but know that all things that grow must also die.

“Otherwise lawful” means criminals. Either you are a law abiding citizen or you are not, and if the latter then you are a criminal.

No, it wont. Its just words on paper. The idea will win, and so far the highest court in the land has supported airport screenings. Therefore the idea remains intact and continues to support the actions of the TSA.

Just because of airport screening? That’s an … unusual … interpretation of our country.

With the slurpee and lime green tennis shoes I’m sure.

Such as? AIT for example maybe?

Her’s, and yours I’m sure, but there are those who would disagree with both of you. Should we ignore their opinion or completely discount it simply because it is not the same as yours?

Quite true, we are not in the military. I was taught to use those techniques on anyone, civilians included, therefore it is quite relevant.

I do know what the official procedures are. It is mistreatment to slice someone open and yank out their intestines as well, but it happens every day and very few complain.

IF IT HAPPENED. So, should we prosecute those who make these false claims just as ardently as those you think actually do it? Can we fire them as well? Hold them up to ridicule in public forums and debate their falsehoods and lack of honesty until the cows come home? Think carefully, quite a few of these claims have been proven false, and most others cannot be proven to be true. What happened to “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”, for you does it apply to everyone, except TSO’s? Who’s next, the paper boy who missed your front porch?

Different administration, or didn’t you notice? Besides, WMD’s have been found numerous times in Iraq, and occasionally the news even reports it. But that is not a subject for this forum.

An opinion from someone who know little about the subject is usually less than useful.

And your supporting documentation for that is …. ?

Quite a bit has changed. Far more than you are obviously willing to admit.

Has the military told you how to arm a nuclear weapon? Have they told you how to build an F-22? Has Russia told you how many chemical weapons storage areas they have and what’s in them?

It’s a pretty basic concept, there is information out there that you do not need to know, and that if made public could have significant national consequences. You do not need to know what our procedures are, and if the information was in the wrong hands it could be used against us. But if you are serious about wanting to know more about our procedures, join the TSA. Then you would have a valid “Need to Know”.

As I said, you “think” you do. “Think” in many ways is like “assume”.

I snipped the remainder of your diatribe because it does nothing for the conversation. The “I HATE TSA” line gets a bit old. If you would like to contribute to the conversation you are more than welcome to, but please leave the rhetoric at the door.

And I agree with you 100%. Dogs are a great deterrent, not always practical, but they do the job very well.

And you are welcome to your opinion. I can even find a great bit of respect for it. But the threat in Israel if different than it is in Toronto, or Dubai, or Cleveland. Different approaches are required, different priorities (economic and political both), different procedures. Any reasonable person would know this, but alas my current tag line says it all.

The actual screening staff nation wide is roughly 45,000+. They service 400+ airports, and more than 2,000,000 passengers every day. That’s roughly 5 passengers an hour per TSO, and as a minimum a checkpoint requires 3 TSO’s and one supervisor. Half the work force is off-duty at any given time, and another third are on their scheduled days off. But the number of passengers varies very little. So that leaves roughly 15,000 screeners to meets the demands of 2 million passengers. Of course at that number some TSO’s are holding down 2, 3, or even 4 different jobs. Many of our staff are part-time, especially in the smaller airports. CAT IV airports often are operated by nothing but part-time TSO’s. IOW, we don’t have enough people as it is, not for the job we are being asked to do.

Indeed there is a reason for every single rules we have. And honestly it does not take a great deal of thought to figure out what those reasons might be. The problem comes when someone refuses to accept those reasons because they are either ignorant of the facts or can’t bring themselves to believe them.

You could not be more wrong. Doctors are licensed by the government, trained using government funding, working in government supported facilities, and get the bulk of their income directly from government agencies. If a doctor’s authority is not supported by the government then they cannot work in this country.

How about Air Force-ville? Army-Ville? Do you trust that everything is just dandy there? Or do you think that they going to go mad with their tanks and their nuclear weapons and wipe us all out? How come you pick and choose which parts of the government are “just dandy” and which are not? I think I understand, the TSA is the “flavor of the month”.

I question just as you do. I understand the answers, or at least give it the old college try to comprehend. I refuse to be intentionally ignorant.

I know quite a few people who would disagree with you.

I had my say. I spoke. I voted. My guy either did or did not win. I occasionally write my congress person and state my opinion, but I also know that they were elected because the majority of people agreed with their views and that elected individual would legislate based upon those very same views. I may not like his or her views, and I am more than willing to let them know that. But to blame a single individual, or even 3 individuals, for policies that have been around for nearly a decade now and have been through more than one administration is just plain stupid. Many people don’t like the war in Iraq, but then again Iraq is most likely to end up an ally to the US because of it. I don’t like New York’s gun laws, which is why I choose not to live there. I think that nut-job in Argentina needs a new job, prisoner preferably, which is why I do not buy my gas at his gas stations. But I am not standing on the capitol steps screaming about the war, I don’t live in New York, and I refuse to support a dictator by giving him my hard earned dollar. I know why I do these things, but I don’t know the intimate workings of each and don’t need to know.

Just as you know that liquids are limited to 3.4 ounces, why you can’t bring a knife, and why when the seatbelt sign comes on its time to sit down and buckle up. You really don’t have to know why, but you do have to comply. And if you actually take the time to think about it, you can figure out the “why”.

My question is this: Why do they have to do it FOUR TIMES????, twice from the front on either side and twice from the back on either side? Wouldn't once on either side from either front or back be enough to detect any 'PANTY BOMB' in that area (crotch, aka *resistance*)??? :confused: :mad:

In my academy training, it was taught that the crotch area is where most items will be hidden. If officers miss something in a search, it most often be in the crotch area. This is because of the negative connotations to searching that area. For this reason, the body was broken down into 4 quadrants. Each quadrant included the crotch area. That meant when done correctly a search included the subject getting the crotch area searched at least 4 times. Of course, the people I am referring to were either in custody or crossing an international border.

FB

And yet members of our armed forces, police, etc. continue to willingly risk their lives-and die, to protect our freedoms.

Do you advocate they stop?

Then why aren't they allowed on airplanes?


Have you ever broken a law?


And your documentation would be?


If the TSA believes that 'the wrong hands' haven't gotten someone hired by the TSA to find out the procedures, they are by definition incompetent.

You mean rhetoric like "if the wrong people got their hands on our SOP...."


How big of you to find a "bit of respect' for someones opinion..

You mean TSA staffs airports when none of those 2 million passengers are transiting? LOL

Maybe you should apply your comments regarding diatribes and rhetoric to the above.

Then we are indeed living in a Police State! :mad::mad::mad:

deleted.

There is a longer legal, moral, and societal tradition behind our position than there is behind yours. It has never been acceptable to grope innocent people as your agency is groping them. Until TSA sprang the October surprise last year on an unsuspecting populace using badly trained personnel.

So, Yeah. We should ignore uninformed opinions of those who think it just dandy for innocent people's crotches to be felt up against their will.

I thought your duties revolved around guarding inanimate things and parking lots.


Do you want a medal? We'll send you one if you'll share the
gropus operandum with us.

Oh, you're starting to make me cry some real sympathetic tears here. NOT. TSA agents are caressing people's butts, rooting around in the private areas of people, touching their crotches, labia, testicles, breasts, anuses sometimes out of bad training, or carelessness, or malice, or perversity. There have been way too many reports of this from credible sources for this not to be true. And there are those pesky videos.

TSA agents ARE doing this. I don't know why, but despite myself, I do take gsoltso at his word that SOP forbids this, but proximity is what it is. You're getting way too close.

"Innocent until proven guilty" was lynched by you folks at the airport. Don't come crying to us now for understanding. There is a very small strand of basic civility remaining between the TSA and those they are groping.

And when you pretend to have better knowledge than this you get your butt handed to you by real lawyers who post here, don't you?

The same that you provide. I have it, I just can't share it with you. Might fall into the wrong hands.


I don't regard changing from white shirts to blue shirts a big deal, but if means a lot to you, then by all means.

Oh yeah, those technologies are exactly in the same order of magnitude as you folks feeling my kid's crotch.

In a free society, you have a responsibility to disclose your groping procedures. It fools no one, is easy to figure out, and serves only to intimidate the innocent flying public and to prevent them from seeking redress from those who violate the procedure.

And that basic concept has nothing to do with you folks goosing passengers and caressing their boobs and butts. You say this to make those awful procedures seem important and they are not.

Believe it or not, I have nothing against the TSA or its personnel apart from this specific abusive process. I would like the TSA to rejoin the rest of us in civilized behavior and stop rationalizing away what they are doing when they strip search us and grope our bodies. There are other ways to solve the security issue. We have to find them. I think you would have all the support you need if you would attempt to find those other solutions.

Nope! Because you still can get the TSA all over the body rubdown/up the inner thigh until it meets resistance treatment after being scanned because the TSA screener viewing the image in the secret room imagines he/she saw an item on the passenger or he/she simply wasn't paying attention to the monitor so he/she gives the patdown order to cover his/her behind.

I think all the relevant points now seem to have been brought out as to why 'a big pack of dogs' might not be the solution (at least as a direct substitute). Just to add that a big pack of dogs don't always see eye to eye with each other and that particular dogs just can't work in the same area and that many dogs working an area is not the optimum working scenario. You might say the same of humans but at least they can usually be convinced to get on with their job in the same space and attempt to work as a team. In other words behavoiral issues are a bigger issue with dogs than with humans (even though it might not seem that way sometimes).

The cat!!

No, you live in a country that has a crime problem and what FB describes is what is necessary for the safety of both the officer and anyone else that the suspect may come into contact with. :(

Please, the histrionics are inane and offensive to anyone who knows the facts. :td::td: