More TSA shenanigans

[DMT]

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.

I'm not sure how you've determined my position on the issue since I haven't stated it anywhere in this thread. If, as you say, the options are the current system vs. no screening at all, then I agree with sheep. Your analogy of a water in a colander is pretty much what we're doing now no? Can the current screening detect an explosive placed in someone's ass? Do we really think that someone willing to blow themselves up isn't willing to shove something up their ass? Of course not, it's only a matter of time. And then what? Are we all to be subjected to cavity searches in order to get on a plane?

[Bob Kohm]

I'm not sure how you've determined my position on the issue since I haven't stated it anywhere in this thread.

You're not the most subtle guy on the planet

If, as you say, the options are the current system vs. no screening at all, then I agree with sheep. Your analogy of a water in a colander is pretty much what we're doing now no? Can the current screening detect an explosive placed in someone's ass? Do we really think that someone willing to blow themselves up isn't willing to shove something up their ass? Of course not, it's only a matter of time. And then what? Are we all to be subjected to cavity searches in order to get on a plane?

The current system is by no means perfect, but it is better by far than the one you're... what word would you like me to use here... "inferring" There are holes in the system, but they aren't announced holes and that does make a difference. With the full body backscatter scanners and their on again, off again presence, with the bomb sniffers, etc., I don't think that anybody can be sure or unsure if a bomb up their ass will be detected. Tell everybody that we effectively won't be aggressively screening X class of people, however, and guess who is coming to the dance with a bomb shoved up their ass, vagina, in the underwear (again...), etc? Look, I don't have an answer for a perfect system and am not saying I do by any stretch of the imagination, but I know that an advertised blind spot isn't just a blind spot-- it's a wide open avenue. I'm just not sure how anyone can get around that logic as it isn't just true here but in any pursuit, isn't it? If you advertise a weakness in anything remotely adversarial, you should expect that weakness to be exploited.

[DMT]

The current system is by no means perfect, but it is better by far than what you're... what word would you like me to use here... "inferring" There are holes in the system, but they aren't announced holes and that does make a difference. With the full body backscatter scanners and their on again, off again presence, with the bomb sniffers, etc., I don't think that anybody can be sure or unsure if a bomb up their ass will be detected. Tell everybody that we effectively won;t be aggressively screening X class of people, however, and guess who is coming to the dance with a bomb shoved up their ass, vagina, in the underwear )again...), etc? Look, I don't have an answer for a perfect system and am not saying I do by any stretch of the imagination, but I know that an advertised blind spot isn't just a blind spot-- it's a wide open avenue. I'm just not sure how anyone can get around that logic as it isn't just true here but in any pursuit, isn't it? If you advertise a weakness in anything remotely adversarial, you should expect that weakness to be exploited.

I don't disagree with your final point, but there is a difference between advertising a weakness and training and holding accountable your employees who fail to use good judgement, as we've witnessed countless times. Instead, the TSA continues to defend their goons every time they fail because the department is dysfunctional to the extreme.

[Fresno Bob]

For what its worth, when i flew from mexico city to sf, i kept my shoes and belt on, didnt take my laptop out of my bag, and went through a metal detector like what you'd see at an urban nightclub, seems to me that mexico is the exploit id use if i was looking to use a plane as a weapon, or more realistically, go for a cargo plane in country

[Fresno Bob]

I don't disagree with your final point, but there is a difference between advertising a weakness and training and holding accountable your employees who fail to use good judgement, as we've witnessed countless times. Add in the fact that TSA continues to defend these goons every time they fail just goes to show how dysfunctional the entire department is.

My solution is that every federal law enforcement candidate should have to do 18-24 months in the TSA, instead of these rent-a-cops, fbi, us marshalls, border patrol, treasury, air marshalls, secret service,
you name it, suddenly youve got a much more professional workforce.

[Bob Kohm]

I don't disagree with your final point, but there is a difference between advertising a weakness and training and holding accountable your employees who fail to use good judgement, as we've witnessed countless times. Instead, the TSA continues to defend their goons every time they fail because the department is dysfunctional to the extreme.

I can't argue with that point, DMT. It's just so fine a line-- what you see as a gross overstep in some of the cases discussed in the thread I see as solid (if unsavory) policy choices. I think we can both agree that more training should be desired but, as I said to Fly, that's got to be paid for and the salaries have to jump dramatically to make the training worthwhile as well as to make it stick. Not sure who is going to pull that off.

[DMT]

My solution is that every federal law enforcement candidate should have to do 18-24 months in the TSA, instead of these rent-a-cops, fbi, us marshalls, border patrol, treasury, air marshalls, secret service,
you name it, suddenly youve got a much more professional workforce.

That makes a lot of sense but for anything to change there would also need to be policy changes throughout the agency; there are still goons in every law enforcement agency that would bully innocent people just because they can.

[DMT]

I can't argue with that point, DMT. It's just so fine a line-- what you see as a gross overstep in some of the cases discussed in the thread I see as solid (if unsavory) policy choices. I think we can both agree that more training should be desired but, as I said to Fly, that's got to be paid for and the salaries have to jump dramatically to make the training worthwhile as well as to make it stick. Not sure who is going to pull that off.

So we must accept this because we're too damn cheap to pay real screeners? Our country is in sad sad shape.

[Fresno Bob]

That makes a lot of sense but for anything to chance there would also need to be policy changes throughout the agency; there are still goons in every law enforcement agency that would bully innocent people just because they can.

Better to catch them when they are being supervised closely then when they are out there in a much more autonomous role, like on the border. A couple of writeups would significantly impact those candidates ability to shift to higher paying roles with more responsibility

[DMT]

Better to catch them when they are being supervised closely then when they are out there in a much more autonomous role, like on the border. A couple of writeups would significantly impact those candidates ability to shift to higher paying roles with more responsibility

Agreed, but they aren't going to get written up unless the agency policies are changed. These goons are being defended rather than reprimanded.

[Gregg]

We need to come with (if it hasn't been invented already) universal detonators. Everone who is traveling together goes into a lead lined concrete bunker, the detonator is actived, no boom continue to your flight.

Training shmaining, we can employ the unemployable. All they have to do is push a button when the light comes on. For more fun and cost savings allow the people in the bunker to push the button themselves. If they do not blow up the button activates the door release and on to their flight.

Added cash can be made by taking and selling pictures that snap at the same time the button is pushed. For added fun pipe in exploding sound effects, it makes for some fun pictures. Ha ha look at Grandma she thought she blew up!!

[DMT]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tsa-let-25-illegal-aliens-attend-flight-school-owned-illegal-alien

Keep up the good work TSA

[swampdragon]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tsa-...-illegal-alien

Keep up the good work TSA

This story is probably true - did you happen to read anything else printed on this "news" site? - it seems a little fictitious and paranoid

[Hornsby]

This story is probably true - did you happen to read anything else printed on this "news" site? - it seems a little fictitious and paranoid

Well, the ads that I saw were pretty right wing, "don't trust the liberal media" and all that sort of blather. And the staff...well, despite the impressive resume' padding, they seem to lack the credentials that most news organizations have.

http://cnsnews.com/staff

[Bob Kohm]

More interestingly...

"CNSNews.com relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore. Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today. Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's fast, easy and secure."

How does a company whose site is plastered with for profit advertising get 501(c)3 status?