Exactly. And then what happens? You see stupid laws passed. After Rep. Giffords and those other people in Arizona were shot what happened? Wailing, gnashing of teeth, "how did this happen", "there out to be a law", and moves to ban things. Standard response.

You don't get it. I'm not suggesting it because it's something I support. I'm saying that it's what happens in the aftermath of an event. Instead of just accepting that there is risk in the world and living with it you see crazy laws passed and you end up with things like the TSA.

Scaling back the TSA won't work until we're willing to have the powers that be explain the concept of "security theater" and "acceptable risk" to the public. And they'll never do that.

I will take it one step further. Some would have no problem with the second you purchase the ticket you would be taken to a guarded facility with armed guards who would fully search you and then keep you there until it is time for you to be taken to the airport and be escorted onto the plane and handcuffed to the seat.

Because alot of people feel that if it makes them safe why not do anything and everything to keep them safe.

This is the key question. I have thought about this and it is difficult.

Since I am not in a position of authority or responsibility, it makes it easier to contemplate. However, I have thought this out based on whether I was in that position.

If I were the one that had either made the decision or accepted the responsibility by taking the position, I would indeed be willing to meet with the families of the victims and try to explain that our liberty depends on people being free to take risks and live with the consequences of that risk. It would break my heart to do it. I would not enjoy it or expect anyone to agree in their moment of grief. Yet, I would do it.

And the powers that be won't stand up to those folks. They won't take the hit. Which is unfortunate.

Exactly. Privately, I've heard countless people inside government serving in positions of responsibility castigate TSA and DHS in terms that would get their outbursts sent to OMNI if posted here, but none of them are willing to go public with what they know to be true - that TSA in its current form is a colossal waste of taxpayer money.

And it's the exact same scenario in the halls of airline offices.

TSA is hated and abhored.

But who is going to be willing to be the fall guy? They didn't even speak out publicly against the total liquids ban, even though we were losing millions a day and could track it exactly to that one event.

Certainly not anyone from the Big 5.

The reason they won't do it is because they aren't willing to be the person who has to get up and tell the victims families that "excrement happens". And just from their own self interest they are right to do so. When people get killed it always gets used for political leverage. "Well, if President So-and-So hadn't scaled back the TSA and if we were still using the nude-o-scopes this wouldn't have happened!" It's a sad pathetic nightmare.

Is this what we have become? Are we a society that only seeks to say "Why did you not protect me" to our leaders?

What happened to courage and guts? We used to be a society that would take our hits and then punish and destroy those that harmed us. We would do it in honor of those that were hurt or killed. We would imprison criminals that took advantage of our liberty. We would enact swift retribution on our sworn enemies that harmed or killed our citizens.

Yet our only response to such actions now appears to be punishing the leaders that were in charge when it happened. Have we have become a whimpering bunch of spineless drones?

I think those are fair points, and the problem comes from the gradual wussification we've had in this country over the last 20 or so years.

Had this happened in the 80's or early 90's, we probably would have had a more reasonable approach to it. However, as a society, we've changed to the point that no one wants to accept risk or responsibility. So instead of acknowledging the fact that yes, there will be risk, and yes, something WILL happen because we are imperfect, we look for someone to blame. No one has the stones to make a stand up and say the hard things. It's "easier" to clamp down and go crazy because then the "hard" things don't actually have to be dealt with. "Reasonable" has also gone out the window. Problem is the more you clamp down, the more likely what you're looking for will slip thru your fingers.

To be fair, that doesn't just happen with security, but it's happening in many areas of government with entitlements, spending, taxation, etc. No one wants to stand up and do the hard thing so we keep going down the road to hell.

I risk analysis needs to be conducted, factoring in 9/11 but not treating it as a sacred cow either. Take a real look at risk, incidents, and safety before and after. Compare overall safety then and now. If air travel was now as it was then, then security can be scaled back. That will never happen though. Government doesn't give up power willingly.

Maybe that should be part of the CoC then. I'm willing to give the airlines some limited immunity from liability provided they did due diligence and due care to mitigate security risks and weren't grossly negligent. Human error, while unfortunate, is forgivable. Gross negligence isn't.

We as a society need to grow a set again. We lost our balls in the last 20 years.

That may be true, but you will have to excuse my disdain for the "anything for keeping me safe" crowd who don't mind Grandma having her crotch fondled by a TSO, but smoke cigarettes, text while driving, drive after several cocktails, (fill in risky behavior here).

On 9/11, approximately 3,000 people died in the attacks. Yet, the very same month, nearly 3,000 people died on the nation's roads.

Oddly, I see no one demanding political leverage regarding that fact.

That's a huge part of it. The other huge part of it is that in politics these days using something as vile as a terrorist attack as political leverage is completely acceptable.

Aren't they immune now? If not, then yes I think any relaxing in security posture should come with limited immunity for the airline.

Excuse it? I encourage it.

I will say this. There is much to castigate the TSA over especially when it comes to customer service and procedures. But some of the actual policies are understandable. They're being given conflicting mandates and are often trying to resolve those conflicts. We don't like how they do so, but the easiest thing to do would be to REMOVE the mandate. I know that's what many of us want. But we have to be honest about what that means. Why we (as in America) aren't willing to do that anymore is a matter for some debate.

Yes. You create a society that's dependent on the government and feel that it's "entitled" and this is what you get.

And frequent flyers are part of that. When you have a few days, count the number of threads involving "compensation" and "DYKWIA".

They are. I should have clarified with using private security similar to what we had pre-9/11. The airlines put up with TSA because of that liability shield. The question is if they had something similar back then, would they have been so eager to welcome TSA?