Originally Posted by m44

Is this all that difficult to imagine a situtation that those who write complaints to TSA get on a no-fly list quicker than those wh do not complain.
When is the last time the fox responded to a complaint from the chicken.

Originally Posted by m44

Is this all that difficult to imagine a situtation that those who write complaints to TSA get on a no-fly list quicker than those wh do not complain.

Originally Posted by Bart

...
When you enter a checkpoint, you do so voluntarily. Actually, it's an agreement you've made as a condition for flying a commercial airliner. If you do not successfully complete the screening process, then you don't fly. It's as simple as that.
...
TSA was originally created to screen all modes of transportation. This should not be a surprise to you. However, the priority, clearly during the aftermath of 9/11, was with airport security screening. Again, this should not be a surprise. Eventually, TSA is supposed to establish screening methodologies for other modes of transportation or at least address security issues.

Originally Posted by whirledtraveler

So, if any one "volunteers" to adopt any mode of transportation in the US, they must surrender their rights. You have the choose between having your civil rights and remaining stationary in the US or moving and sacrificing them.



The "voluntary" argument is bull.

Originally Posted by Bart

Why don't you admit to the rest of your perspective? If memory serves, you believe that any measure of security screening is excessive and passengers should accept the statistical odds that the great majority of them will not be involved in a terrorist incident, making it an acceptable risk (in your mind) at the cost of the relatively few who are victimized by it. You posted that in another thread (I believe it was in the Omni Forum, but could be mistaken).

Originally Posted by Bart

Why don't you admit to the rest of your perspective? If memory serves, you believe that any measure of security screening is excessive and passengers should accept the statistical odds that the great majority of them will not be involved in a terrorist incident, making it an acceptable risk (in your mind) at the cost of the relatively few who are victimized by it. You posted that in another thread (I believe it was in the Omni Forum, but could be mistaken).

Originally Posted by whirledtraveler

Hey at least I admitted it. Why won't the TSA admit that it is doing the same thing? Wasn't there a story about RAND study the other month that said that right now long TSA wait lines are actually a more attractive terrorist target? It appears that the TSA has decided that "passengers should accept the statistical odds that the great majority of them will not be involved in a terrorist incident, making it an acceptable risk at the cost of the relatively few who are victimized by it." How dare the TSA place us at risk like this?

Like I said, I just said made a statement about the risk-calculus out loud. It doesn't go away when people don't talk about it. And worse, it doesn't go away when people don't think about it. My sample of TSA personnel, in this forum, leads me to believe that real reasoning about risk is beyond them. I don't know how far up the department chain it goes, but it is sad.. a complete educational failure.

Originally Posted by Bart

Thank you for your honesty. Just wanted to keep it all in perspective. There are basically two people who criticize airport security: those who believe there ought to be some measure of security but don't agree with TSA's methodology and those, like you, who believe that any measure of security is not justified. Helps to know these perspectives when reading comments, don't you agree?

Originally Posted by whirledtraveler

Well, I never said that, actually. I'm for any security that is unobtrusive. I get the feeling that you want to paint my comments a certain way. That's fine, sounds like a stalking horse for ad hominem: "see he thinks this, so don't look at this on its merits." Just know why you are doing it, okay?

If you get a chance, please tell us why an attack on a screening lane is an acceptable risk, that "passengers should accept the statistical odds that the great majority of them will not be involved in a terrorist incident, making it an acceptable risk at the cost of the relatively few who are victimized by it."

Originally Posted by Bart

I don't know where you got your facts from; however, I'd like to clarify a few things for you. First of all, TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers. They cannot order you to do anything against your wishes nor can they detain you; they certainly cannot arrest you.

When you enter a checkpoint, you do so voluntarily. Actually, it's an agreement you've made as a condition for flying a commercial airliner. If you do not successfully complete the screening process, then you don't fly. It's as simple as that.

If you enter a checkpoint and have an illegal item or commit a crime in the process, then it is no longer a security matter. It is a law enforcement matter, and the airport police will take over the situation. That's when all of the legal principles involved in due process comes into effect. Again, what we're talking about here is, for example, if you have a firearm in your possession at the checkpoint, illegal drugs found incidental to a security search or if you assault one of the screeners. (Yeah, I'm oversimplifying it for the sake of discussion.) These situations all meet the minimum standards for police officers to take initial action; although they may choose to exercise police discretion and not necessarily arrest you. This is strictly a law enforcement officer decision not TSA's. But TSA, along with the airline GSC, will offer their recommendations.

TSA was originally created to screen all modes of transportation. This should not be a surprise to you. However, the priority, clearly during the aftermath of 9/11, was with airport security screening. Again, this should not be a surprise. Eventually, TSA is supposed to establish screening methodologies for other modes of transportation or at least address security issues. I don't necessarily envision us having security checkpoints at bus terminals and train stations; however, I think there will certainly be TSA security inspectors who periodically review security procedures at these various modes of public transportation.

You have not lost your civil liberties. The Constitution is still the Law of the Land. I hope you are objective enough to honestly review the information you have available to you and not fall for the empty rhetoric and cheap hyperbole of anti-government paranoia.

Originally Posted by TSASCRNR

Wait in a year... things will change as far as TSA LEO;s are concerned.

There WILL be TSA LEO's

Its a new change.

Originally Posted by Bart

Uh, no, it's not. TSA screeners will always remain TSA screeners. TSA LEOs are something entirely different. They are federal LEOs who will not be conducting the routine security screening that TSA screeners currently perform. As a screener, you will never become a federal law enforcement officer unless you specifically apply for that job.

Originally Posted by whirledtraveler

Well, I never said that, actually. I'm for any security that is unobtrusive. I get the feeling that you want to paint my comments a certain way. That's fine, sounds like a stalking horse for ad hominem: "see he thinks this, so don't look at this on its merits." Just know why you are doing it, okay?

If you get a chance, please tell us why an attack on a screening lane is an acceptable risk, that "passengers should accept the statistical odds that the great majority of them will not be involved in a terrorist incident, making it an acceptable risk at the cost of the relatively few who are victimized by it."

Originally Posted by eyecue

Any congregation of people is a target. Sports events, amusement parks, rallly's, Tourist attractions. I dont believe that an attack on one of those would have the impact on the US like 9/11 did. Also you cant fault the TSA for those lines outside the sterile area, that area is under control of the local authority. So with 9/11 terrorism made a grand entrance into the United States from a foreign country. It is going to a hard act to top.