Got you.

Me, I have no problems with fishing expeditions so long as it's within the purview of the agency/officer. If you go outside I start to look closely at the what and why.

And of course it has to be pretty much on the up and up.

I'd be interested in the source of that. From what I've read, none of the screeners could remember any of the hijackers at all; except for one guy at PWM who thought (afterwards !) that Atta might be up to no good.Certainly my main complaint about the whole BDO thing.

I don't think the ends justify the means. We have the rule of law as defined by the constitution of this country and states which rights are to be protected.

The illegal search doesn't do us any good if that Ted Bundy gets off because the cops were overzealous and didn't respect the rights of that individual. Instead of being locked away as that person should, the person walks free to strike again.

Nail folks like that, and nail them hard. But also nail them the right way within the framework of the laws we have so it sticks.

I'd rather have an evil person walk and have the law that protects everyone in tact rather than have the law destroyed to get a "bad" guy. "Bad" is in quotes because it becomes subjective at that point.

Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with you. The problem is that the TSA provides entry-level employment at a pitiful salary for a position that new-hires quickly come to recognize as a joke.

Anyone with the smarts to learn to profile and fish will be off like a shot to a better respected, more rewarding, higher paying position.

Kippie and Skeletor are the Michael Browns of DHS.

Frankly, until they are sacked and replaced, DHS/TSA will continue to be ineffective and we will suffer unnecessary risk.

Judging from the posts here there are a few competent mid-level people left in the TSA. I can't understand why.

COS experience
 

So MrsJ is on her way to celebrate her best friend's birthday. She flew out of COS at 0630 and in spite of the sleepy look to the place (only 3 cars dropping off passengers at 0520) she reported that there were no less than 100 people lined up at the checkpoint! :eek: It turns out they were performing the "enhanced" ID checks. People, of course, were not happy that it was taking so long.

The guy ahead of her complained about things taking so long and she said the TSO told him he should have arrived at the airport 2 hours before his flight. :eek::mad: "No! This is a secondary airport, ONE hour is plenty of time for an airport this size, 2 hours only applies to primary airports like Atlanta, Chicago or LAX. And besides, my flight is at 6:45am, the ticket counter isn't even open at 4:45am!" Is what she said the guy snapped back to the TSO. :D Then it came to be her turn. She said the TSO stared at the front and then back and then front of her DL and then at her bp for a solid 3 minutes! So then she piped up: "Is there a problem?" she asked. The TSO replied no, but commented on her DL being from New Mexico. (She's kind of a smartass) "What? Only Colorado residents are allowed to fly out of here or something?" was her testy retort. Then she said the TSO told her "There's no need to get hostile, ma'am!" Well she was about to say something else when the guy behind her piped up "Hostile? You think that was hostile? What kind of pu--y are you? You oghta come to Chicago or Detroit if you wanna see hostile! Now get on with it people have planes to catch and you're sitting on your fat ...!" :eek: ^ She said the TSO sent her on to the WTMD but she didn't get to see what happened between her guardian angel and the TSO.

Oh yeah, even after having the TSO check her ID/bp, she still had to show it after clearing the WTMD. :rolleyes::td:

Have you seen this?

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...train0830.html

How do you feel about that?

No, I had not seen that article. I feel much differently about career law enforcement personnel receiving this kind of training. If this is a proven and effective class then I have no problem with career LEOs adding to their capabilities.

I tend to agree, although I do prefer TSA checking IDs than the many English-challenged people who usually do it, in my experience. Like I said, it gives them another chance to interact with the pax, which could yield fruit.

But, like most things, it all comes down to the individual in question and their relevant competency.

I can't remember who said it but it has been said that any new law passed has to account for the harm it could do as well as the good it could do. I'd add policy to that statement as well. This policy could do some good, maybe. It could also do some harm, maybe, as well.

I'm officially on the fence on this one.

Is that all passengers are to you, an opportunity for arrest? :confused:

After all the billions we've spent on the Kabuki Security Theatre here in the US how many terrorists have we captured? Do you really think that by adding this additional act to the Kabuki Security Theatre we're going to change the answer to my previous question?

Huh? Where did I say that's all pax are? Straw man...

If you hire someone into a security position then you have to expect them to react in a security mindset. TSA is supposedly hired to do a job. The front-line agent doesn't have at his/her access the technology that almost all of us on this board wish was present to eliminate the unnecessary shoe carnival, etc. So, you do the best you can with what you have. Personally I feel we in the US do too much searching for weapons and not wielders. But that's me.

Go back and re-read my post please. And note that "on the fence" comment. It's substantive to the discussion.

First principles - are we at risk for terrorist attacks in airports and/or airplanes? If not, this is all a waste. If so, then what are the best ways to prevent them given limited resources? And secondly, what immediate things can be done until the preferred courses can be brought online (better explosive technology, etc.)?

Relying upon presentation of government-issued ID can and has been -- that is both in principle as well as in practice -- a whopping huge hole in security. When ID comes with "rights" or "entitlements" that non-ID holders don't get for security reasons, there's a hole there that is ripe for exploitation.

ID is not security. ID requirements even open up elephant-sized holes in security, in more than one way, from more than one direction.

I was specifically referring to your, "which could yield fruit." comment. How else are we supposed to interpret that? :confused:

The TSA is poor at even reaching a 95+% success rate in preventing gun and bomb components from getting through. The DHS-TSA clowns are negligent in their diverting resources away from the interdiction of known weapons and toward using that money (i.e., labor cost) for ID checks when they can't even get the basics of weapons identification down to a science.

Given the stultifying nature of the job, the rate of pay, and the turnover, I fail to see how the front line screeners can do anything beyond their basic mission. They should look for what they looked for before 9/11 and they should be provided with better equipment for detecting explosives.

We don't have effective screening now, and I'm beginning to doubt DHS/TSA will ever be able to implement it.

The fact that everything is not screened for explosives today says much about the leadership.

I don't see why you are on the fence. The policy might work, but the screening force is incapable of implementing it as they stand today.

I'm sure the TSA would hire me. I rest my case. ;)

Is that a false statement? Could it not yield fruit? This is a first principle here - can interviewing, in any context, a person potentially interrupt an attack? I'd say it is possible. Look at Richard Reid. Just by talking to him he raised suspicion and was not allowed to fly the first day.

But then, you also took my statement out of context, did you not? Particularly when I followed it up with the "what harm can be done as well as what good can be done" part?

Could talking to pax do some good? I'd say so. Could talking to pax do some harm? I'd also say so.

Hence my "on the fence" comment.