No, it takes CYA because no one wants to be held responsible for an event like that.

Screening's necessary, but it's focused on the wrong things. People have attempted to bring guns and other prohibited items on planes (what's on the list is another discussion) on a regular basis. These should be screened for. What we need to drop is the stupidity for the one off's like liquid and baggie carnival, shoe carnivals and the like.

Invest in the technology needed to do the job right while balancing civil liberties. I agree you guys should have better x-rays. WTMD and HHMD should stay. Puffers and swabs should be used much more often. If there are issues with the machines, figure out how to make them work because they DO work, it's the maintenance kink that needs to be worked out. Don't revert back to methods that have no chance at working because they dont' want to fix it.

I can go on, blah, blah, but I've already stated the other stuff (even above) many times before.

Super

I can't speak for the OP, but I will add the same 2cents I've offered to the forum in the past - and on more than one occasion to House Subcommittee on Aviation and their deaf ears.

In an abbreviated nutshell:

1) disband the TSA screening force completely

2) reduce the TSA to an information/intelligence/reporting clearinghouse which acts an interface between the intelligence side of the government and the various transportation agencies sitting under the DOT umbrella - like the FAA

3) require the FAA to set training and licensing standards for screeners and screening companies in the same way they license and audit flight and maintenance crews

4) grant operation auditing rights for these companies to the GAO and FAA - with the understanding that the FAA is to give out and enforce on civil penalties against screeners, managers and screening companies who fail audits and other licensing requirements

5) put security policy and procedures for aviation back under the FAA's control

6) put the FAM program back under the FAA's control (less law enforcement and more tactical response when needed)

7) leverage the FAA's tech center in Atlantic City as a design hotbed for new screening technologies and equipment

8) while licensed by the FAA, permit screeners and screening companies to be accountable to the airports that hire them (airlines will not have say or financial interest in which screening companies are hired - but they can escalate grievances through both the airport managers and local FAA ACDO)

9) move the passenger security fee into a pooled account which will be alloted to somewhat to the FAA tech center, but primarily as grant capital to airports "in need" to ensure they can hire screening companies and procure the necessary equipment

10) expect uniform screening standards which make sense, contain universal rules, are effective and properly communicated to passengers, airports and airlines

11) expect a hands-off approach to GA - as it should be

12) put the Ombudsman office for passenger/airline security grievances which cannot be handled locally, into the hands of the GAO or other third-party agency

I don't think anyone has ever suggested just rolling the dice and not doing security screening - DB Cooper, the Cubans and Palestinians took care of that option a long, long time ago.

What I don't see the TSA meeting is any reasonable cost/benefit test in its current iteration. It was a mistake and it just has to go.

The TSA screeners are failing their tests miserably with limited repercussions - make no mistake; if private screeners failed their tests and audits at the same rate, they would either have their licenses suspended, revoked and/or face real-dollar financial fines, like any FAA licensed professional does when they screw up. Accountability and repercussions are key components for the success of the new model.

As I've posted many times previously - one of the first things we need to do is disband the TSA and fire everyone who actually believes that there's anything patriotic about filling one's time as an airport screener. In my book, there's nothing patriotic about barking at passengers that their liquids must be tiny and must fit in a baggie.

There's nothing patriotic about confiscating medicine from mothers of sick children and there's nothing patriotic about confiscating bottles of water in August (or any other month of the year) in some half-assed attempt to sell the world on some terror-plot fantasies dreamed up by the henchmen for a couple of politicians on the decline.

And at some level we do have a meeting of minds with respect to low probability events warranting some level of attention. I (seriously) believe we should be devoting more resources to detecting Earth orbit crossing objects.

Screening had its place pre-9/11 and I believe it still does today. Screening should be done to keep large edged weapons and firearms out of the cabin to the extent that it is possible with current procedures.

Even if you discount "terrorism", there are still plenty of crazies to go around.

To be honest, what fries my goat is not the TSA or FAM programs per se, but the wasted time and effort generated by some of the policies. My primary objection to the TSA as an agency is economic, not just because I disagree with individual policies.

Let's start with the FAM program. I think it should be scaled back to pre-9/11 staffing levels with the marshals deployed to counter specific threats, not flown constantly around the country in the hopes that a threat will find them.

a) There are too few marshals to make it likely they will encounter a random threat.
b) Flying them around constantly must result in mission fatigue.
c) Fresh, rested marshals deployed for a specific purpose would give me a warm fuzzy feeling I don't have today.

As far as the TSA goes, I think the private sector can do things more efficiently than a government agency. See Team SFO, though others may disagree.

1) Either end the liquid ban or prove definitively and publicly that it has a basis in fact.

2) Stop requiring shoe and outerwear removal unless the passenger alarms.

3) Stop banning lighters and pocket knives. Upstream intelligence and hardened cockpit doors make a repeat of 9/11 more expensive than other, similar, tactics a terrorist might take.

It's like the old story about avoiding a bear attack - you only have to run faster than your slowest companion. It is not just the probability factor.

Once you eliminate flying commercial aircraft into buildings as a threat you are left with the simple (bad word) destruction of aircraft. Anyone capable of organizing a 9/11 can probably do that without bringing anything special into the cabin.

4) Stop SPOT. If I find a young woman gazing deeply into my eyes I don't want to have to question her intentions. I don't want any men gazing deeply into my eyes.

5) Implementing 1 through 3 will drive a stake through the heart of the Registered Traveler program, as it should. In its final form RT would allow me to not remove shoes or outerwear when being screened - and all I have to prove is that I have nothing suspicious in my background.

So, in a nutshell, that is my proposal.

Edit to say, wow. I was typing this during a conference call and neglected to see that everyone had beaten me to a reply. That will teach me to work after hours

I agree that the prohibited items list can be trimmed down significantly. The irony behind all this is that the 9/11 screeners had the authority to prohibit box cutters if they had any suspicions about the passengers. It was a more random policy which may have been its downfall: screeners could also allow the items on board if they didn't see any reason to prohibit them.

I'm going to bow out of the FAM discussion other than to express my personal view that I think it can be streamlined by deploying FAMs on high-risk flight paths. In other words, if the data indicates that certain flight paths tend to be either lucrative terrorist targets or have a history of being attacked by terrorists, then that's where I would deploy the FAMs.

Team SFO is, for lack of a better term, TSA through a private contractor. In other words, the private screeners at SFO must meet the exact same hiring standards as TSOs; these screeners must receive the exact same training as TSOs; they must qualify and meet the exact same recertification standards as TSOs; and they are supervised by TSA screening managers under the authority of a TSA FSD. In other words, the only difference between these private screeners and TSOs is the uniform. Otherwise, they are government contractors.

I don't have a problem with your other points, and I believe I addressed them in either another post or thread, so I won't repeat them. I wanted to focus on SPOT. I think TSA has out-voodoo'd itself with this program. I think EVERY TSO should be trained in basic behavior detection techniques not so much as staring down passengers and trying to start a conversation with "how 'bout them Spurs?" I think part of the basic package is to be on the lookout for suspicious behavior in general and responding to those suspicions. I think this is a basic trait for law enforcement, security enforcement and should be required for airport security screeners.

In my previous career, body language played a huge part in many operational decisions. Yes, we had the benefit of polygraphy, psychological screening and a host of other tests. But it all boiled down to that gut instinct which isn't so much instinct as it was trained observation (truth be told: I think we all have these capabilities and either are aware of it or are not; training only enhances what we already have).

I don't object to government oversight. What does Team SFO cost vs. TSA? Then again after we repeal everything we both agree needs repealing?

Agreed. But can you do this with essentially minimum wage workers in piecework positions? The last boarding pass checker who gave me "The Gaze" was clearly in way over her head. You either pay people to do SPOT, with ID checking as a secondary activity, or forget the whole thing.

I gave up a graduate degree track in psychology for a much more lucrative position in high-tech

Polygraphy is a scam, by the way.

Oh, hang on. I think I see where the communication breakdown in. Let's step back a sec.

I was deliberate in the use of upper case "Natural Law," to indicate an ethical theory. I did not mean law of nature or "law of the jungle" or anything like it.

So now I'm unclear about your use of first principle, given the rest of the discussion.

Tigers are irrelevant to our discussion since we're not talking about law of the jungle.

Of course. Ethics only apply to humans. I never said or assumed otherwise.

People disagree over all sorts of things but voluntarily respect the rights of others. Agreement is a sufficient condition to enjoy a right, but not a necessary one. Disagreement does not entail the denial of rights.

Nonsense. Go back to the slavery example. Blacks had an identical moral right to be free of enslavement before the passage of the 13th Amendment as after. The consensus was about the practice of slavery as a moral matter, which was addressed in Section 1 of the amendment, while Section 2 declared Congress' power to enforce Section 1, "by appropriate legislation." The principle was recognized and declared prior to its enforcement.

We need to be clear whether we're talking about negative rights or positive ones.

Which superior being are you referring to? Moreover, how do you know there's a superior being, and by what faculty do you evaluate the existence of such an entity and divine its intent? And what do you have left if you remove human experience from an equation?

Humans have always possessed the right to disagree with one other. It's just that some humans think the power to infringe the rights of others have been conferred to them. They're mistaken.

And by now, you should be able to see back to the beginning of this thread why it's fallacious to think that gov't somehow grants or creates rights. Men can create laws, but not rights. The Founders didn't give us the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness because because it was never theirs to give away -- it already belonged to us. The Bill of Rights is primarily a code of ethics adopted by common law as recognition of the inviolable rights of the individual.

The Hobbesean passage from the State of Nature is a metaphorical journey, not a literal one. The State of Nature is tool of rhetoric. Some folks insist on interpreting him otherwise. ::shrug::

No, I haven't, law_dawg. To wit ...

Recap: I said that concepts are discovered. The notion of a right, such as liberty, is a discovery.

Territory is a concept, too, though. So, you've just contradicted yourself. If property doesn't exist in nature, how can territory exist?

Man is different from all other animals.

So which is it: Man as pack animal, or man as striver of democratic society? Last I checked, pack animals don't develop constitutions. Humans do.
So we do have a prior idea of what value we're fighting for then? This is just as I've maintained throughout.

However, your next suggestion is that if we don't fight for an idea, it just goes away ... ceases to exist -- do I understand you correctly? But this makes absolutely no sense!

"Founders had to fight to make them." The founders had to fight to make rights exist? Oy! Do you mean fight for a positive recognition of rights under the law? You're losing me.

No. We've been through this.

Except for:

• Ramzi Yusef
• Abdul Hakim Murad
• Ahmed saeed
• Wali Khan Amin Shah
• Mohammed Jamal Khalifa
• Zacarias Moussaoui

and 10 others if you include the 1993 WTC bomb.

What is Natural Law (upper case)? How is it different than natural law?

It is a human concept. We made it up.

People are not born with morals. Those are instilled by conditioning. People talk about the innocence of children. This is completely wrong. Children are very small sociopaths. Children only understand "ME!" If a child wants a toy they take the toy. If something gets in their way they hit it. They do this until they're TAUGHT not to. The have ethics and morality instilled in them through reward and punishment.

My point is you pretend these "rights" are somehow independent of human understanding. They are not.

Of course we are. Humans are animals, just one's who have created an imaginary concept called "rights."

So if they only apply to us how can we divorce them from human understanding? Where did this concept come from? And, if they came from us and our imaginations, then they mean EXACTLY WHAT WE SAY THEY MEAN.

If I disagree with your right to own a nice car and I take it away from you at gunpoint would you hold that to be true?

You pretend there is a difference. There is not. The entire concept of rights is a human construct. It has no real value independent of us.

We have come far afield of where we started, which is generally what happens. My only real point is this - our country was founded by some somewhat similar-minded folk who decided they wanted things to be a certain way. Others disagreed and disagreed forcefully. So, we had to defend ourselves. And that defense was what let us implement our vision of the world and our place in it. Without that it would have been a noble idea but one snuffed out.

I don't believe there's a higher power. I believe its all human fantasy. While I agree with that fantasy I don't believe, like many do, that somehow it really exists. Ethics and morality only exist in consensus.

Name me one right that is agreed upon universally. Across the board, everywhere. Just one.

Really? If I kill you because you disagree with me who won the argument? Where are your rights? Why didn't they protect you?

Men create rights. There are no a priori rights. They are a human creation. If tomorrow the government said "no more rights" would you have them? Would you have them if you lived in China?

Go to the Sudan and tell them about your rights. Let me know how that works out for you. What will happen to you will probably be pretty horrible. Your rights will not protect you. What will protect you is a bunch of people on your side who will say "no!" and then back it up with physical action to defend themselves against those who would prey upon them.

No it isn't. Sorry, the state of nature of man is a brute. Only by apply intellect are we able to rise above that. Intellect backed up by a willingness to defend ourselves against those who would prey upon us.

I disagree with your disagreement.

You said animals have no rights because they cannot conceptualize them. Before you said children have rights even though they could not conceptualize them.

I do not have X because I do not have Y.
I have X even though I do not have Y.

Which is it?

Where was it? Was it lost? Where did it come from?

You have a point here.

Property is a human name that we gave to an instinctual animal concept. In nature, or in a lawless society, the stronger take from the weaker. If a stronger animal wants something they take it. If a stronger animal wants your territory they kill you or drive you off and take it. So why doesn't this happen to you? Because we people have agreed not to do it and those that do we try and punish. The LAW is why. And where does the law come from? People.

How?

Human beings are not animals?

Or just more intelligent, reasoning ones?

Show me one pound of liberty. Measure out a cup of justice. They do not exist. They are societal constructs. We made them up. They do not exist.

I mean they had a different way of looking at the world and said this is the way we want it. And they had to fight to make it so.

Before man existed, were there rights? If so, where did they come from? If not, where did they come from? Your talk of "Discovery" implies prior existence independent of Man.

My point is we made the whole thing up.

I was referring to those actively on planes trying to find a way to attack them. No one has been arrested for making a probe or dry run I'm aware of, yet how many hijackings have there been since the 1970s?

"8) while licensed by the FAA, permit screeners and screening companies to be accountable to the airports that hire them (airlines will not have say or financial interest in which screening companies are hired - but they can escalate grievances through both the airport managers and local FAA ACDO)"


There is no legal obligation to use TSA employees. Airports can hire any contractor they want. 5 airports(last time I checked) use contracted employees.

Take away the liability that TSA protects them from and give them the choice and see who chooses what.

5 airports were also chosen for comparison purposes to compare how TSA and contractors can fare. Of course, there isn't much difference when they all have to play the same TSA idiocy, but they're generally more customer service oriented as they CAN lose the contract.

Dozens.

Please re-read my explanation (re: Natural Law vs. law of the jungle) and/or check wikipedia's or SEP's entries if the distinctions still aren't clear.

Repeating yourself does not sufficiently refute my point about discovery vs. creating. Ex.: Gravity. Was this a phenomenon discovered by men, or is it a concept we just "made up?"

Pretending is saying things you don't mean or believing in things you don't really understand. There's no pretending on my part.

You are equivocating about the sense of animal -- genus vs. differentia -- as well as dropping context about each statement.

For the sake of clarity, I'll make myself explicit: All humans are animals, but not all animals are humans.

As for children and the basis for rights considerations:
Names and labels and symbols and language, of course, are made up by men, but facts of nature are not. Perhaps you think I'm conflating the two when I speak about "rights" but I've been as precise in my writing as I'm capable of. Your claim that rights are just a social construct does not square with my understanding of man's nature.

# # #
<@:-)> We should probably take this offline unless Cholula or VPescado want to bother with detaching our (very off-topic) exchange for dispatch to OMNIville. I'm happy to continue this via PM. <\@:-)>

I, for one, am enjoying the discussion. ^