C'mon PT, you know anyone on the "other side" is facing an uphill battle on this forum.

I'm your Huckleberry. I'm not a lawyer but I feel I have a pretty good grasp of most Constitutional issues. I make mistakes, and will again, but I feel I understand most issues pretty well as a LEO, having had to defend my positions and actions several times, up to and including in federal court.

My answer: it can't.

It's secure with regards to hijacking (not airtight, but secure). Explosive detection is lacking, even more so with regards to cargo.

IMO we're about 60-70% there.......

True.

Well, yes and no. The standard TSA hype is not going to go down well here. However, there are a number of TSOs and STSOs who post here who are well-regarded. As far as that goes, I frequently face an uphill battle in every forum when the topic involves law. Lawyers are about as unpopular on FT as TSOs.

You'll note that in, my posts here and other TSA threads, I have always said that one of the reasons why TSOs have no business investigating anything other than possession of weapons or explosives is because LEOs, whose job it is to conduct investigations (and enforce the law) have training that includes the constitutional limits on police powers. Indeed, I believe I said in one post that most LEOs have knowledge of applicable constitutional law that is equal to most lawyers.

And that's my point. The secured cockpit with reinforced door has done more to deter hijacking (along with passenger awareness of the consequences of cooperation) than anything TSA has ever done. Hijacking has simply ceased to be significant threat to commercial aviation. Explosives remain a concern, but virtually nothing TSA does ameliorates that vulnerability. Anyone could walk through the checkpoint undetected with a pound of C4 in his pocket. Four terrorists could bring on a gallon of liquid explosives. A really determined terrorist group could place an atomic bomb on board a plane in air cargo.

And nothing TSA does would prevent it.

Which is roughly where we were before 9/11 and the billions of dollars expended on TSA. No one is opposed to having a secure commercial aviation system. However, we don't have one. Instead, what we have is an unregulated quasi-police force that is untrained (compared to real LEOs), ineffective and has little or no regard for the Constitution and the limits on government power it represents. It's not surprising that abuses of power are experienced and reported on a daily basis.

In another post, a TSO mentioned that he is thanked daily for the job that he does by people passing through his checkpoint. I find that the most frightening of all -- there is a huge segment of the American population that is willing to give up constitutional guarantees against government tyranny in the interest of security. History has shown, consistently, dramatically and often, the results of this kind of thinking.

I don't think there's much abuse of the Constitution going on at the checkpoint. It's outside the checkpoint that I find the TSA's mandate to be a little overbroad.

Points I've posted repeatedly, and have yet to have anyone who is TSA or supports them be able to refute with anything close to a logical argument.

^

^^ Every time I am standing in line at the airport, I make sure that the people around me realize that they are mere participants in TSA's Kabuki theatre. It's incredibly disappointing how many sheep there are out there.