Explosive Sniffing Dogs?
Just sayin...
Apr 28, 2011 | 1:09 pm
#62
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North of DFW
Programs: AA PLT, HH Gold, TSA Disparager Gold, going for Platnium
Posts: 1,535
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.
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.
Apr 28, 2011 | 6:17 pm
#63
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
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 TSOs 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 thats 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 ones 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 TSAs is reactive, and we will leave the proactive to other government agencies better able to meet those demands.
I didnt 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 didnt 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. Its 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 Im 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 1970s. 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 cant 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 its 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 publics dislike for something must be weighed against the advantage of doing it. People didnt 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 dont 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 dont 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.
Thats 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 dont know much about them either, but I do get some of the information that you dont.
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? Thats 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?
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.
If the TSOs 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 thats 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 ones 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 TSAs is reactive, and we will leave the proactive to other government agencies better able to meet those demands.
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.
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 didnt 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. Its 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 Im reasonably confident that there would be a fairly good reason for it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Apr 28, 2011 | 6:47 pm
#64
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
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 TSOs 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 thats 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 ones 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 TSAs is reactive, and we will leave the proactive to other government agencies better able to meet those demands.
I didnt 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 didnt 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. Its 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 Im 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 1970s. 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 cant 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 its 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 publics dislike for something must be weighed against the advantage of doing it. People didnt 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 dont 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 dont 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.
Thats 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 dont know much about them either, but I do get some of the information that you dont.
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? Thats 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?
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 TSOs 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 thats 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 ones 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 TSAs is reactive, and we will leave the proactive to other government agencies better able to meet those demands.
I didnt 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 didnt 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. Its 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 Im 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 1970s. 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 cant 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 its 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 publics dislike for something must be weighed against the advantage of doing it. People didnt 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 dont 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 dont 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.
Thats 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 dont know much about them either, but I do get some of the information that you dont.
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? Thats 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?
Apr 28, 2011 | 7:01 pm
#65
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FLL - Nice and Warm
Programs: TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 1,025
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!
Apr 28, 2011 | 11:31 pm
#66
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 453
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.
Last edited by Lara21; Apr 28, 2011 at 11:40 pm
Apr 29, 2011 | 1:14 am
#67
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
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.
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.
Sorry, but you are incorrect. The technology has been in the works since long before either of those individuals worked for the TSA.
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.
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.
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.
Hospitals...never tell you all the gory details of what they are going to do, and sometimes they don’t even tell you why.
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.
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?
Last edited by nachtnebel; Apr 29, 2011 at 1:19 am
Apr 29, 2011 | 3:59 am
#68
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, FB Plat, AS Gold, Marriott Gold, Fairmont Plat, BA wannabe
Posts: 684
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 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".
Apr 29, 2011 | 5:15 am
#69
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,964
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.
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.
Oddly enough, I often read complaints from Americans about the military presence at the Marne-la-Valle train station because they think that it 'ruins the Disney atmosphere'.
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.
Apr 29, 2011 | 6:19 am
#70
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 204
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. Its 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 Im reasonably confident that there would be a fairly good reason for it.
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 dont 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?
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.
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.
Apr 29, 2011 | 5:03 pm
#71
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
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.
Tis the nature of thing to grow, but know that all things that grow must also die.
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? Thats an unusual interpretation of our country.
With the slurpee and lime green tennis shoes Im sure.
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.
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.
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.
Its 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just as you know that liquids are limited to 3.4 ounces, why you cant bring a knife, and why when the seatbelt sign comes on its time to sit down and buckle up. You really dont 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.
Apr 29, 2011 | 7:21 pm
#72
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
Last edited by Cholula; Apr 29, 2011 at 8:43 pm Reason: Trying to bypass the profanity filter
Apr 29, 2011 | 7:43 pm
#73
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
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*)???
FB
Apr 29, 2011 | 7:43 pm
#74
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Grand Cayman
Posts: 18,740
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.
Do you advocate they stop?
Then why aren't they allowed on airplanes?
And your documentation would be?
Maybe you should apply your comments regarding diatribes and rhetoric to the above.
Apr 29, 2011 | 8:04 pm
#75
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
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
FB