The same thing can be said about your beliefs, Ron. :D

Well, Ron, you are wrong. It wasn't "Lack of foresight, lack or procedure, lack of imagination." It was the well-known reality that all airlines had procedures in place which forbid their employees from resisting a hijacking. The hijackers knew they would meet no resistance, and except for flight 93, they didn't. They could have hijacked those airplanes with a ball point pen, as a matter of fact.

So you see, it wasn't lax gate security. And yet the traveling public has been forced to endure TSA as a response to the 9/11 hijackings - a level of security that wouldn't have prevented 9/11. Given these facts, how do you justify the existence of TSA?


Wow, Ron, I'm so impressed. You can quote old movie lines.

The thing is, I work with TSA and DHS on a routine basis as part of my job, and if anyone deserves the label of ignorance, it would be you with regard to your view as to just how important TSA really is. Inside the Beltway in government, TSA is widely considered to be a joke.

Of course, when your leadership rejects an analysis of the current threats to aviation security produced by real aviation security professionals because it doesn't fit their preordained expectations, what do you expect.

UM Ronnie only has belief's (sic).
As I'm sure you're aware, TSA = joke (and a bad, expensive, damaging one at that) is not a perspective specific to inside the Beltway.

My bad. I do realize TSA is considered to be a joke outside the Beltway as well as inside - I limited my comment to that area which I am familiar with. ;)

I seem to recall a joke about a very frustrated congressman who had the floor and announced that "50% of this Congress are idiots". He was thoroughly rebuked by the Speaker who demanded a retraction. The admonished congressman then said on the floor "50% of this Congress are not idiots".

I'm pretty confident which 50% of the TSA screeners TSScreenerRon falls into. But he is doing a better job than I can proving why TSA screeners should be treated in the same manner that the TSA treats people.

I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that I'll have the chance to run into him one day at a checkpoint or even better on the General Aviation side of the FAR part 139 aircraft operating area.

I am amazed. Although I am not a lawyer, I was required to take some law classes for my degree.

I agree that TSA appears to have ignored the Constitution.

FYI - I also spent 10 years in the military.

TSORon, I respect your service to our country. However, during your swearing in, you swore to defend the Constitution of the United States. At least I did, every time I re-enlisted.
The UCMJ provides specific guidance concerning lawful orders.

The 4th Amendment is very clear. The search(es) you perform is administrative.

Routinely, TSA finds my pocket knife, which I always carry with me. It is in the tub along with everything else that I take out of my pockets to prevent the metal detector from beeping. I am then escorted back around. I return to my truck and secure my knife. I have carried it for over 20 years. Like my wedding band, I feel naked without it. I am a frequent flier on commercial airlines and also a pilot.

My time in the military taught me many things. One of them was the difference between military and civilian life. In fact, I have told many that I would rather be arrested on-base than off. Things in the military were very structured and tended to be black and white. Although I was never arrested, I knew exactly what to expect from the SP's. I also knew that my CO would press for discipline, if an SP was out of line.

You ask for specifics. They were given. Yet, your responses are not direct and fail to provide any 3rd party support for your position.

Could we just address the shoe removal issue? Let's limit the discussion to that topic.

Regarding shoe removal, you have responded, but not defended TSA's position.

"Name other countries that require passengers to remove their shoes for X-ray prior to boarding a flight? This cannot include countries that require shoe inspection when flying to the United States. I doubt if you can name five. Countries like Israel, France, Germany, England, Spain, and Italy have all had past or current problems with terrorists and yet they don’t have this poorly designed policy." - magellan315

You never answered his question, yet it should be easy to defeat. Locate another country that has been attacked by terrorists AND requires shoe removal. Locate a web site and quote (or link to it) in your response.

If magellan315 is correct and we are the only country that requires this, then challenging TSA's position is warranted. We share the same intelligence. Why are they not requiring shoe removal?

The question is simple and straight forward. Please answer.

I do have an answer:
"I believe that TSA continues this dance to avoid being challenged in other areas. If they stopped requiring the removal of shoes, then the public might expect them to stop gate searches."

mn_voyageur; Welcome to FT. ^^

I believe your answer to be correct. If TSA is seen to be backing away from one facile thing they do, the circus as a whole becomes visible in a different light, and is in danger of collapse :eek: ie how could shampoo be dangerous yesterday, but not today? People only passingly involved will begin to question the whore :D on water, the nonsensical demands for GIPID to check against your home printed BP, the need to have shoes upright in the X-Ray, as well as more telling ignorance symptoms such as the blind spots for non-liquid explosives.

^

It might go as far as; if they were wrong on the shoe issue, what other things are they wrong about? That would open TSA to a scrutiny they know they would never endure without people being fired and possibly having charges filed against them in federal courts.

I use the word "properly" because I know for a fact that there are plenty of cases where someone is found guilty of a crime improperly.

The intent to break a law is against the law so that separation is moot.

I thought I was clear that my statement pertained to criminal matters, the juggling without a license law you referred to is most likely a civil ordnance or law, similar to most traffic laws.

As Holmes wrote in The Common Law,

Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957) upholds this principle.

Please note I am NOT saying that you can use as an excuse that you did not know a particular statute existed.

Yep. Exactly right.

Actually, as a rule, you need the intent to commit the act and then the actual committal of the act itself - mens rea and actus reus.

They make a cream for that. :D

Thank God. The itching is getting insane. :D

As I've noted previously, a report prepared by an interagency experts on aviation security last year was rejected by Kip Hawley and his cohorts, in part because it didn't produce the answer he wanted. The report concluded that the biggest threat to aviation security was under the wing - cargo, not passengers. Since that would undermine the whole TSA Kabuki theatre, he rejected it.

Was this report ever released to any public source?

I would really like to read it.

Ditto.