Again, just how many of that 115 traveled via scheduled air transport?

I think the part where you stated that it wasn't worth it rubbed me the wrong way. I find all life valuable, and I get from your post that you feel that the TSA folks keeping an eye out for missing kids may somehow interfere with your program, so therefore the whole thing isn't worth it.

I find no harm in this. I doubt you will actually see TSA folks overly scrutinizing the kids that breeze through their work areas, but if one does find one, all the better in my book.

I don't think any special powers are being granted to the TSA folks in this. Isn't this just a sort of awareness thing? I thought they just keep an eye out for the kids and report to either their bosses or the police.

We'll never know until all 115 cases are solved. Some of these kidnapped kids are still missing, while some have been found dead. Until arrests are made in all 115 cases, and a suspect or suspects whereabout during the kidnapping is established, it's impossible to know. Does it really matter, though, when a child has been kidnapped by an unknown suspect?

From the article: "Screeners will be looking to stop abductors from taking children on planes."

Do you really believe that screeners are going to be content with an "awareness and reporting" role? This is the agency that has redefined "mission creep."

I doubt that should be taken literally. Everyone knows that the TSA folks can't stop anyone, just report them to the police. Mission creep? How so?

Perhaps because none of those cases solved to date involved a scheduled commercial air transport flight?

Again, identify a single real-life case of stereotypical kidnapping in which empowering the TSA would have had any impact.

edit: There's an old cub scout campfire skit that is analogous ...

It starts with a single scout frantically searching the ground underneath a camplight. A second scout comes along and asks, "What are you doing?"

"Looking for my compass!" the first scout says. "OK. I'll help!" says the second as he joins the first in the frantic search of the ground under the light.

Along comes a third scout. "Hey, what are you guys doing over there?"

"Looking for Billy's compass. Can you help?" they shout.

"Sure! I'll help" shouts the third scout as he joins the furious searching on the ground.

<repeat for as many scouts are there are in the den>

Finally, along comes another scout. "What are you guys doing there?" he asks. "Searching for the lost compass!" they shout. "Well, where did you lose it?" the newest scout asks. "Over there!" shout the other scouts as they all furiously point off to a dark area at least 50 feet away.

"Well, then why aren't you looking over there where you lost it?" asks the newest scout.

"Because the light's better over here!" shout the first scouts.

---------------
In a nutshell, that's what happens when you broaden the TSA's mission to child abduction. Yes, child abduction is a heinous crime. But child abductors don't use scheduled airlines, they generally drive. Unfortunately that's harder to track, and we do have tens of thousands of TSA seemingly standing around with nothing better to do. So why not have them search for abducted children "just because the light is better?"

LOL! Everyone knows this, except the TSA. "Do you want to fly today?"
You've been around a couple of days and have a couple of posts. Stick around and search this forum for "mission creep." You'll get a lot of hits and a few of them might actually prove informative.

It's a matter of semantics, and we've danced around it a number of times in this forum. Yes, the TSA theoretically cannot arrest or even detain (in the legal sense) anyone; but in practice can effect so by simply refusing to release a passenger's belongings, protracting the secondary or in extremis accusing them of interference or some other TSA-violation. In essence, if they want to keep you at the checkpoint, they will find a way.

Which is the point of this debate. Or should be if emotion can be removed. Nobody here is in favor of child abductions FFS, just that most of us (the "vipers") do not trust the screeners* to be any more effective or even-handed at this new responsibility (sic) than they are at their current one.

There are some screeners who do the job well, some who do it it poorly and some who should never be let anywhere near the public. Giving the latter two any further perceived authority is guaranteed to simply increase the likelihood of checkpoint confrontations without accomplishing anything.

If there is a LEO at the checkpoint, then the amber alert is already being observed; or should be. If not, and a screener "SPOTs" a potential abductee then a LEO has to be summoned. Will the suspect be allowed to continue into the concourse or 'held' until the LEO arrives ? What do you think ? Can you see why some of us think it a Bad Idea ?

* as a group

Well, if there are some TSA folks that do their job well and some who don't, why scrap an idea based on the 10%ers? From what I have read, this is a "partnership" with the center for missing and exploited children. The center provides the data to the TSA in DC who will forward it to director at the airport who in turn puts out the word to his folks and other airport employees. We all know that there are many airline and airport employees and contractors that are 10%ers as well, but no outcry has been seen here condemning their involvement in this program or "mission creep". It remains to be seen whether this is actually an active program, meaning the TSA folks will be seriously scrutinizing every child coming through the checkpoint, versus an awareness program whereby they are given the info just in case one of these kids does happen to be traveling through. Given the likelihood that the latter will happen, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts this partnership will be very minimal.

Ok...I'll take a look....

Because they do not have the authority or opportunity to (illegally) detain anyone.

Well, no one has the authority to illegally detain in the first place and nor do the TSA folks. All they can do is tell the police and they take it from there. Am I wrong?

Exactly what I was trying to say; you said it better.

Because TSA's job is supposed to be keeping commercial air travel safe. We can also have TSA be on the lookout for tax cheats, industrial polluters, fashion offenders and people with bad breath, but it's not their job and detracts from what is supposedly their central mission. This new "responsibility" is just more PR to make it look like TSA is serving a good and valuable purpose, so the Kettles can all think, "Ah, we're so much safer, and think of the children!" while more and more of our civil liberties are eroded away. I guarantee that this latest piece of lunacy will merely ensure that a specific percentage of completely single parents or (or one parent traveling without the other) will be detained by LEOs called by suspicious TSOs, and will miss flights, be publicly humiliated, harassed and worse. I'd also make book that not one abducted child will be rescued as a result -- not a single one.

Then why have it all? Why publicly announce TSA's involvement, if not for the PR value? I think the point that you're missing is, not only is this a silly and futile effort, but the motivation for doing is despicable, i.e. exploiting the problem of abducted children to justify an intrusive and ineffective TSA.