More TSA shenanigans

[DMT]

The search function is lacking so I couldn't find the old thread, but the TSA goon squad is at it again. What makes these incidents even more infuriating is how the 'spokesmen' defend them as 'following procedure'. I shudder at the prospect of having to subject my children to these goons.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134280/Weeping-year-old-girl-accused-carrying-GUN-TSA-officers-hugged-grandmother-passing-security.html#ixzz1sxAVHmrN

And a recent incident in Wichita, Kansas has reinforced that argument, as a four-year-old girl was apparently subjected to a humiliating ordeal after she hugged her grandmother while she was waiting in line.

The girl was accused of having a gun and declared a 'high security threat', while agents threatened to shut down the whole airport if she could not be calmed down.

When asked about the overbearing treatment the girl received, a TSA spokesman did not apologise and insisted that correct procedures had been followed.

[DMT]

And the hits just keep on coming, great week for the TSA.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/04/25/family-misses-flight-after-tsa-gives-pat-down-to-girl-with-cerebral-palsy/

The Transportation Security Administration is once again the subject of national scrutiny, this time after aggressively screening a 7-year-old female passenger with cerebral palsy which caused her family to miss their flight.

[Bob Kohm]

I understand where you're coming from, but the question has to be "Should we be screening at all?", not simply finding what appears to be overzealous screening and singling it out as being wrong. There's a long history of planting a bomb in a baby carriage or similarly having an unwitting person who would normally garner sympathy-- a pregnant woman, a child, a disable person-- deliver a bomb or some other form of enemy activity. If you're going to screen anyone, then yes, absolutely screen the little girl with cerebral palsy, the seemingly wounded war vet or the woman with an infant--- they're just as likely (probably more likely, actually) than a team of six Arab looking guys to be the guise that an enemy would use to deliver a weapon for precisely the reason that they'd seem sympathetic and might not be vigorously screened.

Bottom line-- if you think any protection is warranted, then these specific actions are warranted. If you think no searches or security should be warranted, then obviously these aren't. The middle ground here is not the place to be standing, imo.

[DMT]

Is there any evidence that the TSA has ever stopped any terrorist plot (sh!t, anything at all) ever in its existence? Seriously, I don't know and am curious.

Certainly not drugs and corruption.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/04/tsa-screeners-drug-arrest.html

I am not aware of any 'successes' of TSA and I'm sure if they had it would be all over the news so the TSA apologists could get all lathered up in praise of each other. Seriously, the agency is a disgrace and a failure and needs a complete overhaul.

[chancellor]

Is there any evidence that the TSA has ever stopped any terrorist plot (sh!t, anything at all) ever in its existence? Seriously, I don't know and am curious.

In the anything at all category, yes - even I have to give them that much, and I think the TSA is one of the most incompetently run organizations in the Federal government. I've even been able to witness them removing one wackjob from the Cincinnati airport. Under the category of "criminals are stupid", he tried to smuggle a huge pipe wrench through security and then wigged out when it was discovered.

[DMT]

Bottom line-- if you think any protection is warranted, then these specific actions are warranted. If you think no searches or security should be warranted, then obviously these aren't. The middle ground here is not the place to be standing, imo.

This is exactly the argument they are using, 'either you accept everything we do to you in the name of security or you want our skies to go unprotected'. It's nonsense.

[senorsheep]

I understand where you're coming from, but the question has to be "Should we be screening at all?", not simply finding what appears to be overzealous screening and singling it out as being wrong. There's a long history of planting a bomb in a baby carriage or similarly having an unwitting person who would normally garner sympathy-- a pregnant woman, a child, a disable person-- deliver a bomb or some other form of enemy activity. If you're going to screen anyone, then yes, absolutely screen the little girl with cerebral palsy, the seemingly wounded war vet or the woman with an infant--- they're just as likely (probably more likely, actually) than a team of six Arab looking guys to be the guise that an enemy would use to deliver a weapon for precisely the reason that they'd seem sympathetic and might not be vigorously screened.

Bottom line-- if you think any protection is warranted, then these specific actions are warranted. If you think no searches or security should be warranted, then obviously these aren't. The middle ground here is not the place to be standing, imo.

I agree with this, and I think federal level searches and patdowns are not warranted. We're not getting much bang for the buck there, so far as I can tell. I still want federal involvement with no-fly lists, video monitoring, air marshalling - "behind the curtain" kind of stuff.

[B-Fly]

I understand where you're coming from, but the question has to be "Should we be screening at all?", not simply finding what appears to be overzealous screening and singling it out as being wrong. There's a long history of planting a bomb in a baby carriage or similarly having an unwitting person who would normally garner sympathy-- a pregnant woman, a child, a disable person-- deliver a bomb or some other form of enemy activity. If you're going to screen anyone, then yes, absolutely screen the little girl with cerebral palsy, the seemingly wounded war vet or the woman with an infant--- they're just as likely (probably more likely, actually) than a team of six Arab looking guys to be the guise that an enemy would use to deliver a weapon for precisely the reason that they'd seem sympathetic and might not be vigorously screened.

Bottom line-- if you think any protection is warranted, then these specific actions are warranted. If you think no searches or security should be warranted, then obviously these aren't. The middle ground here is not the place to be standing, imo.

I don't know if I agree that there's no reasonable middle ground, although I agree that profiling/reverse-profiling isn't the way to get to that middle ground. I think the TSA screeners would appear to need far better training in sussing out suspicious behavior, and there needs to be an effective way to identify and remove TSA employees who either abuse their authority for sh!ts and giggles or who consistently demonstrate terrible judgment.

[TS Garp]

I still want federal involvement with no-fly lists, video monitoring, air marshalling - "behind the curtain" kind of stuff.

Agreed. The US should just take a lesson from El Al here. They have sky marshals on every single flight. Obviously, that would be much more difficult/impossible here, but I certainly think it's a better place to invest money.

[senorsheep]

I don't know if I agree that there's no reasonable middle ground, although I agree that profiling/reverse-profiling isn't the way to get to that middle ground. I think the TSA screeners would appear to need far better training in sussing out suspicious behavior, and there needs to be an effective way to identify and remove TSA employees who either abuse their authority for sh!ts and giggles or who consistently demonstrate terrible judgment.

How much of the terrible judgment is actually ground-level decision-making vs. proper execution of poorly conceived procedure, do you think? I don't really have a good sense of that.

[B-Fly]

How much of the terrible judgment is actually ground-level decision-making vs. proper execution of poorly conceived procedure, do you think? I don't really have a good sense of that.

I don't know. Are the procedures published anywhere? (Probably not for security reasons.) If the procedures limit or trump the exercise of reasonable judgment by well-trained professionals, then they're poorly conceived. Of course, they may deliberately limit or trump the exercise of reasonable judgment in recognition that they don't have, can't attract, and/or can't retain sufficiently-qualified professionals in sufficient number.

[Fresno Bob]

I just hope that 10X the attention is paid towards checked luggage that goes towards the passengers. I have every confidence that the passengers can handle ANYTHING that goes down in the actual plane outside the cockpit

[Bob Kohm]

This is exactly the argument they are using, 'either you accept everything we do to you in the name of security or you want our skies to go unprotected'. It's nonsense.

Actually it's not. If we tell the world that we are going to screen the hell out of people who "look suspicious" but that we won't be screening women with children, children themselves, the handicapped, etc then why bother with the exercise at all? This isn't new-- it's happened from antiquity right up through the Viet Nam War, the current wars we're fighting and several times in Israel over the years. If we're going to leave a massive vulnerability and actually instruct our enemies how to exploit it then why spend the money at all for useless, do-nothing charades? Further, I would disagree with the first sentence of your's I quoted-- it is not "either you accept everything we do..." that is at issue and you're engaging in some hyperbole here. We're talking about a limited scope operation-- pat down flight screening at security check points-- not kicking in your doors and searching your house when you've purchased an airline ticket, lol. Sheep feels the program in total should be abandoned and as usual I don't agree with him, but his is a reasonable response to the situation. Yours, I'm afraid, is self defeating-- you're saying we should try to catch water in a colander.

[Bob Kohm]

I don't know if I agree that there's no reasonable middle ground, although I agree that profiling/reverse-profiling isn't the way to get to that middle ground. I think the TSA screeners would appear to need far better training in sussing out suspicious behavior, and there needs to be an effective way to identify and remove TSA employees who either abuse their authority for sh!ts and giggles or who consistently demonstrate terrible judgment.

Know what the problem is with bestriding the middle in your colossal way, Fly? Every now and then a giraffe comes down the pike and bites your nuts off

Better training? Outstanding, but I think if you want people better trainable then we're going to have to start paying these people an awful lot more than we are now. What's your plan for getting that through Congress? Abuse authority for ****s and giggles? Absolutely agree-- how do you determine who is doing that and who is showing an abundance of caution as the TSA rules mandate they should, though? Terrible judgement? Define it, please. Is it terrible judgement to stop someone from boarding a flight if they have artificial joints that are setting off detectors but no documentation to prove it? Is it terrible judgement to search a child? In some cases it might be, but in most cases we're talking about long lines of people on tight schedules who simultaneously demand not only something approaching absolute safety but also convenience, a minimal delay and that nobody assume that they might be the problem. How are we to mandate exceptional judgement from the low-level folks manning the security stations under those circumstances, knowing that if they're the one who let's a bomb through they'll be publicly flayed by every media outlet in the world and their own employers and that under a regime like DMT is proposing they'll be similarly flayed for "exercising poor judgement" and not letting people pass through unsearched if they "honest really really don't look like a threat"?

It's not a perfect world situation and I don't think there are perfect world solutions. It really is an all or nothing game.

[Bob Kohm]

Agreed. The US should just take a lesson from El Al here. They have sky marshals on every single flight. Obviously, that would be much more difficult/impossible here, but I certainly think it's a better place to invest money.

Unrealistic and I also think that FB hits the nail on the head-- hijacking will never be an issue again as the passengers will attack and the pilots behind their armored door will simply roll the plane, depressurize, etc. Nobody is getting in a cockpit again except under the most rare circumstances. The issue, imo, is bombs being smuggled aboard.