Sorry to hear about all your complaints regarding TSA. But one thing is for sure. Everyone was all terrified during and after 9-11. The problem now is that people are getting to relaxed and think its not going to happen again. Well the the news that i watch with Tom Borkow they sure are waiting to get us back again some way some how, So how about having a little respect for the TSA, you never know we just might catch a terrioist getting aboard your plane one day and save your life or your families lives.

"So how about having a little respect for the TSA, you never know we just might catch a terrioist getting aboard your plane one day and save your life or your families lives."

Your agency couldn't catch a terrorist if one came up to you and confessed.

I'd rather take my and my family's chances on the screening procedures that were in place before 9/11 than continue to see your agency abuse people's civil liberties to no good purpose. The chances of them catching a terrorist are just as good, if not better, than the TSA catching a terrorist.

Welcome to FlyerTalk.

Not "everyone" was terrified after 9/11. I was flying again on 9/17, LONG before your joke of an agency was created.

The TSA has NO chance of catching a terrorist. The TSA would not know a terrorist if one came right up to an FSD and kicked him/her in the rear.

The TSA is nothing but workfare. Plain and simple.

The Tsa Couldn't Catch Anything, Let Alone A Terrorist. They Are Too Busy Being Obsessed About Shoes... What a Bloat Of a Bush Administration 'department, with 'agents' who THRIVE off of their alledged 'police power'.

No Respect Will Ever Be Given To TAS And Rightly So.

It's true that I never know when the TSA might help me. But I can give you a list of the times the TSA has terrorized me while I was just trying to go about my life. My body has been invaded repeatedly in ways I find completely sickening. I have been threatened with being banned from the airport for objecting to the way screeners carelessly handled my belongings. On other occasions TSA agents have laughed in my face when I objected to the way things were being done. There are myriad other large and small indignities I suffer regularly at these sham checkpoints. Real security does not require molesting innocent passengers.

What exactly is your definition of real security???? dont just give a sarcastic comment like not harrassing passengers... how about a real solution???? one that is very thorough....theyll all come down to some type of public contact...there's no avoiding it....

Again, try the search feature. You will find a great deal of information.

This is very funny - TSA people find terrorists? I would not bet on it.

The next terror event is more likely to be a suicide bomber walking into an airport and standing in line for TSA - when he/she is in the middle of the hundreds standing there, then blow. This kills hundreds of people. The air travel industry comes to a halt because nobody will want to go near an airport or any other crowded place.

How did TSA prevent this event? I won't wait for an answer. Security at the gate it too late.

But, I do not feel the policies in place make it more secure to fly. Please note terrorism 101 if they want you to take your shoes off take them off don't stand out. THe reason a trusted flyer pass will never work, fly 100 or 1000 times and get the pass this makes you a trusted flyer they will then do this.
My worry is that we are trying to take the cheapest route and my concern is more about explosives in luggage not on persons. Why are we not working more on that even if it means more inconvienence. Take the 10 bucks per passenger and buy all the machines you can get.
Also, I think my fellow passengers will put up a fight in the event of a terrorist act on a plane. I for one would fight as if my life depended on it.
By the way I have been in the air probably more then 1000 times since 9/11/2001.

The TSA apologists and the 4th amendment activists on this board continually trade arguments like this:

apologist: Oh, yeah, what if a terrorist puts <weapon> in his <hiding place> and then gets it on the plane. We're just here for your own safety.

4th amendmenters: Current screening wouldn't find out if a terrorist had <unbanned item> and used it to <implement some diabolical plot>. So why should we submit to the current screening if it's obviously ineffective?

----------------

This entire repetitive dialogue is missing the forest for the trees. The target on 9/11 was office buildings. Big office buildings. What justifies the enormous expense focused only on airplanes? This is just an irrational, emotional response. There have already been plenty of terrorist plots, worldwide and in the U.S., that targeted buildings and crowds directly without the intermediary of airplanes. A huge problem with the frisk-everybody-who-flies security model is that it ignores vast classes of other risks as it pours all available security money into a very low-value security measure. As the Eileen McNamara of the Boston Globe put it, "It is easier to frisk one another than it is to take the time and care required to figure out who hates us and why."


Real responses to terrorism include:
hiring more language experts and intelligence experts
investing in countries on the brink of radicalism
revising intelligence agencies' information sharing mechanisms

For more detail, see Congressman Jim Turner's (Ranking Member of Select Committee on Homeland Security) plan:
http://www.house.gov/hsc/democrats/p...ssrelease2.pdf
double special ops forces,
increase number of FBI agents 50%,
screen 100% of cargo entering U.S. for nuclear material
hire an additional 500 Arabic speakers at State Department
create a U.S. Reconstruction Corps,
"Marshall plan" for the Middle East,
secure unprotected nuclear material worldwide,
destroy all the world's chemical weapons by 2010.

Because it more than likely would.

I agree - and don't see the need for increased searching and stuff, but don't forget that airliners were a popular target for terrorists when we were less prepared for hijacking. There's good sense in trying to prevent a captive group of passengers from being taken hostage in a structure than can transport them virtually anywhere in the world. That doesn't mean that shoe searches are really logical, but the "old skool" screening for guns and bombs should be maintained.

Bingo!

Nobody here is calling for an elimination of screening. What we are calling for is a return to logical screening, I.E: Dangerous objects.

There is no need whatsoever for a Federal Agency to screen passengers. What is needed is Federal Oversight, not the Airlines, of private screeners.

Not to worry. It's just over the horizon.

And I can't wait. Back to square one. Back to the "I don't give a f**k looks" back to the most inept, uncivilized, workforce on the face of the planet.

Yea, I use to fly, but now I don't make enough money to travel that way because I'm just a "basic screener".

As good as this is, it has two major strikes against it from the beginning:

1: It makes sense
2: It all occurs behind the scenes, and will have nothing to show the masses.