I can handle criticism well, I also welcome it because it allows for the eventual best decision to be made. That aside, I mis-typed in my post and by TSA meant Travel Security, sometimes the two mold together in ones mind. I am freely open to political discussion, I am a Political Science major. However, as stated by yourself and Dov there are ways to have those discussions that are much more progressive than what I have seen in the past on these boards. My point, as Dov pointed out so well was to make sure the discussion stayed on the informed statement side, rather than just ranting. Now back to your previously scheduled programming...

This is an opinion of which I disagree wholeheartedly. I think those who cry "illusion" are those who are angry with the terrible inconveniences which going through security now is. Such anger and disruption harbor accusations of constitutional improprieties. One could argue the same thing if cops stopped every driver at a particular location on a highway causing huge backups and tested them extensively for sobriety---even though they themselves are tea-totalers.

Sadly, the actions of the TSA (and police at random checkpoints) are currently Constitutionally valid.

I sincerely hope that both the TSA's actions and sobriety checkpoints, as well as all applications of implied consent are deemed illegal or Constitutionally revisited and deemed to be Unconstitutional.

I don't "cry" illussion because of the inconvienence. I STATE illusion because with close to 20 years of experience in the security industry I know an illusion when I see it.

Analise, you forget that I live in Israel and face security inconveniences which make the TSA's pale by comparison.

The difference is that I can see the logic behind what Israeli security is doing as opposed to how the TSA is going about the job.

Offer me a Mercedes for $10000 and I will be thrilled with the bargain. Try and sell me a package of chewing gum for $50 and I will scream that you are a crook.

The TSA is combining both -- the price of a Mercedes with the value of a package of chewing gum.

Are you kidding me? Analise, do you really think that the TSA confiscating pointy objects and examining tennis shoes really makes us safer? I'm not asking if it makes you feel better (illusory). I'm asking if you rationally think that civil aviation in this country is objectively safer than it was pre 9/11.

On another note from early in the thread, the fact that John Kerry wants to increase TSA screeners is enough to make me vote for George W. Bush.

For whatever reason, I go through no more "inconvenience" when travelling via US carriers today than pre-9/11; however, I do pay for the inconvenience caused to others and for the charade that is called "security" today. This "security" amounts to a substantial national tax long-term with a medium-term dog & pony show that is likely to get worse before it gets better (cost- and efficiency-wise).

I suspect that "security" is still playing the elusive "catch-up" game and that what we have today -- given the foolish policy decisions in regards to
"security" (read: domestic and international security) -- is an even greater security threat than pre-9/11 or at anytime in the months immediately following. The security situation is worse and has been made worse due to poor domestic policy choices and horrendous international policy ones.

Anyone familiar with reports that no less than a dozen or two Chechen battle-hardened extremists have possibly crossed over from Mexico to the US after having acquired TX or FL drivers' licenses. Apparently, after the Putin-Bush deal of oil-for-Chechens, they got "motivated". ... and none of the "security" measures widely in place today will prevent what we saw strike Russian passenger planes earlier this year.

Safer than September 10, 2001? Yes. The TSA's approach is more than just checking at the Xray machine. Your opinions that what you see are that of an illusion probably match my assertion that there is more to the TSA operation than what happens at the gate.

There is no evidence that the TSA, with its massive bureaucracy and out of control cost mis-management, provides even a shred of improved security over the private screeners of pre-9/11.

Tests run against the TSA have shown that guns, knives, bombs and other planted prohibited items continue to be missed - all it takes is one determined individual to get past the checkpoint just once to wreck havoc, and it does not appear the TSA has a better chance of catching them than Globe Security (or other contractors) would. The 'no-fly' list, the silly SSSS system or any of the other "behind closed doors" procedures the TSA manages can easily be circumvented and only make travel that much more frustrating.

"Improved" security offered by the TSA is an illusion. The attacks of 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with airport screening. The terrorists were able to do what they did because of outdated guidelines that said "do not resist - cooperate". If box-cutters were banned back then, they would have found something else to bring onboard, or perhaps they could have taken bottles into the lavs, broke them and used the glass as a weapon - avoiding the checkpoint issue altogether.

The TSA's groping, poking, and confiscation of toenail clippers will not make us safer. People need to understand something - this is very important - there is absolutely nothing - nothing that the government can do to make air travel or life itself perfectly safe from a terrorist attack. No matter what the government does, no matter how far they go, no matter what laws or repulsive rules they pass, they will never, ever make our nation attack-proof. If terrorists want to attack and do harm, they will. Period. The problem is we have a society that cannot wrap their minds around that concept. They are constantly being fed information that reinforces their fears and phobias while being shown demonstrations of security designed to teach them our new processes will make them safer. I have said before that you could ban all luggage and force passengers to fly nude and guarantee there won't be a hijacking or bomb, but you can do nothing about the terrorist hiding in the bushes firing a missile at the plane full of naked people as it takes off.

Our Nation has a habit of fueling unity and patriotism based on a common fear of a bogeyman. It started out with the British, then Spain, then Germany, then the Soviet Union, then the Colombian Drug Lord and now the terrorist. At each step, the government relies on our feelings of fear and vulnerability to push the agenda of the day. While we complain about the Patriot Act and other freedom and privacy busting initiatives from the current government, we should remember the not so distant past under a Democratic administration, when the fear of the Drug Lord bogeyman ushered in the age of private asset confiscation, RICO laws, and the early stages of the dismantling of the 4th Amendment. No politician screamed loud enough back then for fear of being labeled a drug supporter, and few will scream too loud now for fear of being labeled unpatriotic.

Don't get me wrong - I am all for airport screening. I do not want another passenger on board with a gun, bomb, chemical agent, or anything else that can do me harm - I am just stating that the TSA and it's processes have not demonstrated any increased effectiveness, or that its existence has any chance of improving my safety over what it was on 9/10. I also accept that the government will never be able to guarantee my safety, and I accept that the price paid for living in an open and free society is the assumption of some personal risk. Since the government cannot absolutely take away the risk, I would prefer they do not take away my open and free society.

Is an American living in New York or Washington likely to be safer on September 10, 2006 than on September 10, 2001? No. I wish it to be otherwise, but wishful thinking delivers little more than an inevitable (albeit painful) reconciliation with reality.

This whole post was excellent IMO and I can't help but at the visual image of this.
Good way to make a serious point with humor!

Agreed. Props to bocastephen!

Oops I didn't mean it to be funny, but I guess when looking at it again, it is abit funny to picture a plane load of naked people. Although when I picture my fellow pax from FLL and PBI naked, it's more scary than funny.

If memory serves me, I thought there was a charter operator who was going to run 'clothing optional' flights to Cancun (or someplace similar). I wonder how the TSA would handle screening that flight.

Then they could really get a handle (so to speak) on some mysterious bulges!

I echo bocastephen's sentiments. In fact, I think there is substantially less to the TSA than we see at the WTMD, and I think you give them far too much credit.

You are entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be.

(Please take that as a friendly joke, as it was intended!)