Could it really have been our TSA 'friends' that made a U.S. Marine honor guard accompanying a serviceman's coffin to his funeral undergo secondary? That not only defies intelligence, it subverts the military and all who live in this country should hold dear: specifically the U.S. Constitution.

Indecency personified.

As is, IMHO, any no-brainer non-target coerced into being made a public example without being told why.

It's not just unwise to make war on one's brothers-in-arms, it's damned INDECENT!

TSA HAS no common 'categorical imperative', and those who know it best and yet continue to serve the screwworms are the most indecent of all.

See? Ya got me started on indecency and the TSA: mutually inextractible.

It wasn't exactly like that, but your characterization is close enough to what transpired. That is, the TSA would have existed but not in the manner it does today if Daschle & Co would have failed to get their way, principally for the purpose of trying to outflank the Ruling Party on so-called security items and appeal to a few core consitutencies and try to build another one up. (The majority party and the Administration could have killed it, but they weren't willing to make a target of themselves or figured it was better to preserve the bipartisan spirit of the time and not make a fight of it.)

In some regards (i.e., certainly not most ), it's more useful to have the TSA "workfare program" displace the private sector, principally as the constitutional rights aspect come into play more strongly. Of course the Administration and the tools in Congress have been more than happy to facilitate "workarounds", even if of questionable legitimacy; and so, public sector or not, the "workfare program" set-up may not provide significantly better protection of civil liberties than if the jobs were done by private sector screeners.

Ok, I'll bite. So its all Daschle's and Gephardt's fault? I thought the TSA was created in 2001 by a Republican Controlled congress and a Republican President? (the same regime that trumps 9/11 all day long and uses it as an excuse for everything)

Could you please provide sources to back up the statement "the only reason the TSA exists today" are these two?

Preferably credible ones. I'd be interested to learn these two are alone responsible for the TSA.

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. I guess it's all a matter of experience and perspective.

Agreed. It really has nothing to do with who's in Congress or in the Oval Office. It was a collective effort to take whatever steps were deemed necessary to improve airport security in the wake of 9/11. This was a true bipartisan effort. And now that much has settled since 9/11, no one is going to touch this even if the Democrats have the majority in both houses.

As I've posted in other threads, the only thing that a Democrat-led Congress may do is have TSA conduct cargo screening that is more effective than the trusted shipper policy, and again, that's something that both parties agree on. The difference is that the funding required for that effort is probably going to come from funding that would have gone towards the war in Iraq. Republicans won't touch it; Democrats will do so in order to pressure the White House into withdrawing troops. It's more about political leverage than it is about actually improving airport security. And that is the dirty nature of politics.

Funny, I keep telling the people I work with that most of the passengers that come through the checkpoint are great people. It's the one or two percent that are idiots or jerks that can make the job unpleasant. Seems we have nearly the same opinion of each other.

If they could just find a way to steer the "bad apple" travelers into a special exclusive lane manned by "bad apple" screeners .....

There's that whole "incidence of contact" scale. That is, the number of screeners potentially bothered by one bad passenger is generally far less than the number of passengers bothered by one bad screener.

At the TSA, when a passenger asks a question or challengs an action/status, "the customer is rarely right" in the eyes of a sizeable proportion of screeners. Does the TSA treat passengers as customers? No, they consider the flying public to be potential terrorists, criminals, idiots and babies of some sort or another. Another case of rhetoric not matching the reality.

The list of people that TSO's can exempt from selectee screening has changed a number of times. As it stands, in most cases the airline has the authority to exempt someone, not the TSOs at the checkpoint. In most cases if the airline makes someone a selectee the TSOs must screen them as such, or send them back to the airline to seek an exemption. Bottom line -- it was the airline's choice, not the TSOs

Since the rules for exempting people have changed a number of times and you haven't given any specific information I can't speak to this particular situation. I would bet though, that the TSOs would have exempted those Marines if they could have. This assumes that your talking about selectee screening when you say "secondary screening." Anyone that sets off an alarm will be screened, period.

As for your idealistic view of service members, as a veteran I can tell you that I knew more criminals when I was in the Military than I have since I got out. Considering the number of people I've seen court marshalled I think it's naive to assume that someone wearing a U.S. military uniform has no bad intentions.

This works both ways -- the number of bad passengers one screener encounters in a day is far greater than the number of bad screeners one passenger will encounter in a day.

Granted the screener has more abuse potential than the passenger -- most of the time. I'm not trying to defend these abusive people, merely pointing out that if we step back far enough screeners and passengers tend to be similar people overall.

Wow! - that's very zen.

I would say the vast majority of american security screeners are professional, polite and generally helpful. I estimate about 1-2% of my TSA experiences have been negative (not bad for 2-5 encounters per week).

I can't say I wasn't to blame for most of my poor experiences since they generally involved me insulting or shouting at TSA and any armed pretend soldiers (i.e., national guard) brought over to threaten me after complaining about rude, forceful, racist or just stupid screeners being aggressive with my wife and children who generally receive SSSS when they travel.

Yes, a screener will encounter far more passengers than a passenger will encounter screeners. But what you are noting only becomes meaningful if part of a platform by which to justify collective guilt & punishment and excusing the screener taking out their frustration with some on others. What I noted becomes meaningful as part of a platform of individual accountability.

There's certainly a good number of similarities between the screeners and screened; however, there's the power dynamic differential and the resulting sensibility of holding those with the delegated authority accountable. Passengers don't have officially delegated authority for purpose of this discussion.

Actually what I was trying to say is that perspective changes meaning. I say that a screener encounters more passengers, You say that more passengers encounter the screener. Not a word for word quote I admit, but hopefully it captures the essence of both statements. Empirically both statements mean the same thing. In practice they can serve as an indictment of either the screeners or the passengers depending which statement you use.

As for individual accountability, passengers are accountable too and what I noted is meaningful as part of a platform of individual accountability on their part. Once again perspective -- and the real truth is that everyone involved has a measure of accountability.

Finally, taking out frustration with some on others. It shouldn't happen. It does. I think you would have a hard time finding anyone in any profession that can truly ignore their internal emotions and treat each person they come in contact with neutrally. You'll find the same dynamic waiting in line at the bank, the supermarket, the hospital, or the movie theatre. Human behavior is predictable, I suffer those that annoy me knowing that a hundred more are coming that will not. I acknowledge that that's difficult to do when you're the person standing in line rather than the person controlling the line and I absolutely believe that that even if we can't always be friendly we should never practice punitive screening. Especially since punitive screening doesn't just punish the passenger, it creates more work and diverts resources from people who warrant more scrutiny to someone who warrants none.

I agree, though I would add that both sides have responsibilities and a small number of people on both sides sometimes willfully and sometimes carelessly fail to meet their responsibilities. As I said before, everyone involved has a measure of accountability. I have seen enought screeners lose their jobs to know that, at least at MSP, the screeners are held accountable.

In my experience of going through or starting trips at MSP, it is one of the better large airports in terms of TSA. (Certainly better than DTW international arrivals connections TSA and that beast known as EWR. ) So what you say shows.

Dear Hungry:

I would include in the list of no-brainer non-targets girl scouts and grandmothers. I am not naive: I suppose a few could be terrorists. Point is, if TSA is after risk MANAGEMENT rather than risk control, the human brain should be involved from time to time. However, what we get is a pledge of "dignity and respect" for all paxs.

Please tell me one thging dignified or respectful about a CP. Couldn't be the written TSA pledge (this week) is a LIE, could it? No wonder I won't be "serviced" by such an agency. Not just nasty, but LYING nasty.