TSA or T&A ???

[Ducky]

Flash, Clux etc..

My argument was not well formulated during the late night airwarriors sesh. To sum it up, I just think more common sense and people skills would better serve the citizens they are "serving." If the agents hired were competent then it would be more believable that we could effectively mix our intelligence with our screening process. The screening process needs to be proactive mixing national security intelligence with general screenings. The terrorist will always be changing and adapting because they are smart, but it doesnt do much good if every TSA policy is concieved after an attack or unsuccessful attack. Take off your Shoes, then limit your fluids, now get naked where does the line get drawn. In the past several months it was intel that stopped the cargo plane from being blown up not the TSA. Until the TSA methods are blended with intelligence and competent thinking people it will continue to be just a show.

129 Paddles- you don't need to go to the Top Gun Manual to see the sucess of our tactics. You saw it on CNN during the opening night of the Iraq war, and you can still find the evidence of success on you tube. I didn't say find me an article indicating what exact method worked I just asked for an anything that talks about the TSA in general actually stopping a serious attack. I venture to argue that the big attacks are stopped by our intelligence network not fondling pat downs; thus, making anything other than metal detectors, bomb residue machines and the ocassional random search unecessary.

 

[pilot_man]

And getting all fired up over some female security professional accidentally bumping your girlfriend/wife's breasts with the side of her hand is somehow manly?

This is obviously a hot topic with lots of different views. I'd like to think that we as Americans can keep some of the freedoms that our forefathers earned. Or we can just give them back one by one. It's been said many times, TSA sucks at what they do. It doesn't have to be that way, it just is. They are not the type of people that we should have running the security of our airports. Yes, we have to do something, but even these pat downs won't do the job. The formula must change.

To C420sailor, my wife felt like she was being assaulted. That's the end of it. What you like to do in the backwoods of Meridian is up to you. If you like crazy toothless dudes playing with your junk, more power to you. My wife is not some sit at home and be a candy ass kind of woman. If she felt like they went too far, then they did. Now, I as a man, am going to get really pissed off about that. That is what men do. We want to protect our families at all cost. And if the government is going to allow this, then I'm going to get vocal about it.

 

[Python]

^ Agreed.

C420Sailor, no passport holding, social security card carrying American citizen should be treated like a criminal. Maybe these tactics would've seemed normal in East Germany or the Soviet Union, but this is the United States of America, and citizens do have liberties. We need security, but at the point where the line is crossed and you say "shut up and deal with it because we're safe now", you need to take another civics course. Check the quote on www.fuckthetsa.com

Bottom line: common sense and good intel, not a security "show" at the airport.

 

[Harrier Dude]

 

[AJB37]

Here is what some TSA agents say about the "enhanced security" ... seems like an unpleasant situation for them as well. Here is to having my nuts felt up on Wednesday...

 

[HAL Pilot]

My 15 year old daughter flew from San Diego to Vegas yesterday. Her comment to me? "Ya know Dad, I thought the first person to squeeze my boobs would be some boy I thought I was in love with, not some old hag at the airport. You worry about me with boys but that woman got a lot further than any boy ever has."

She didn't refuse the body scan and even though she had nothing in her pockets, etc. they decided she would get the pat down. She was traveling alone and said she felt very intimidated, so she went with the flow. She said she felt violated.

 

[Clux4]

Those bastards are smart - I think a lot of Americans tend to underestimate in that regard. All the same I don't think that the TSA is really what they should be - for the most part, they just are not a legit security organization nor do they come off that way. I have personally, and quite on accident (left ammo in my flight bag in a pocket from the range), managed to get ammo through about 10 airport security checkpoints. Searches and scans are small potatoes - any thinking enemy can find away around them or target another vunerable area. Pretty much anyone can walk into an airport and blow it to bits without the hint of security prior to entry. The biggest improvement, IMHO, to airline security was the armored cockpit - but all the same there's about a million ways to kill a mass amount of people.

Ryan I would not sit here and tell you TSA answers the bill but we just can't afford not to do anything. There are a million and one ways we can be attacked and we just can't let the enemy implement any one of those plans. It is really hard to defend everywhere and that is what we are doing. Unfortunately, we have to defend ALL avenues. As Flash mentioned above, the mere fact that the terrorist knows we are conducting extensive search will force him to think otherwise.

Common sense is that there should be a combination of general checks along with profiling that puts certain demographics through more intensive screening.

I think we already put profiling to rest. The living, thinking, breathing enemy is now using clean individuals, born in the US, with US passport, the average Joe for their dirty work. So, who are you going to target ?
Common sense!! Did you know prior to 9/11 that flying an aircraft into a building was a realistic threat. Did you know before last Christmas that a passenger next to you could be wearing an underwear bomb. Unfortunately, this enemy adapts and we are playing catch-up. They are willing to go to all lengths for the pleasure of a small victory. We don't know what they know and what they don't, so we are not always sure what is next. Applying common sense is assuming that you can predict the enemy and be a step ahead of him. This is an extension of global terrorism, so our plate is full for the foreseeable future.

I seriously doubt as many people would complain if the implementation of the policy was a little less offensive. A lot of people will eat a shit sandwich if it is presented well enough.

Suggest to me how you would make it less offensive. How exactly would you make it less offensive to a whinny unrealistic population. This is not Customer Service here. You are being searched for possible weapons end of story. Why are your feelings getting hurt over nothing? What are people turning to these days? We got other issues to worry about. Why don't you tell the fvcking terrorist trying to kill you he should be less offensive.

BOMB/DRUG/WHATEVER SNIFFING DOGS

The CBP trains beagles to sniff for vegetables in international baggage, investigators train dogs to find dead bodies, ATF to find drugs, etc. I've actually seen a demonstration where these dogs marked on a bag of weed that had been ensconced in concrete.

The plus side is, it's cheap as hell, it's super portable, self cleaning , and they are amazing at finding even the littlest thing, and getting sniffed by a dog is a lot less intrusive than getting felt up.

Obviously you have not dealt with search dogs. You would need about 10 dogs alone to search one wing of JFK for an 8 hour shift. Dogs get tired and distracted easily so you have to rotate them out after about 15 mins. Eventually they will all get tired and will need to go back to their Kernel. Dogs in this situation cannot be the primary means for the above reasons. Think about how many dogs we will need for all the busy international airports we have.

 

[m26]

Ryan I would not sit here and tell you TSA answers the bill but we just can't afford not to do anything.

Not doing this =/= not doing anything

Besides, if they want to ramp up security they could take an actual good idea that doesn't impose an absurd burden on fliers, of which I reckon there are a great many possibilities.

It is really hard to defend everywhere and that is what we are doing.

Good, because that's a strategy well established by history to be effective.

Unfortunately, we have to defend ALL avenues.

As has been stated a few times, once you truly defend ALL avenues, NO ONE will fly commercial.

As Flash mentioned above, the mere fact that the terrorist knows we are conducting extensive search will force him to think otherwise.

And has been stated by others, establishing the parameters of that extensive search shows a decent terrorist all the possible ways he can beat it. I can think of about 6 off the top of my head (where they will stay, of course).

 

[insanebikerboy]

Obviously you have not dealt with search dogs. You would need about 10 dogs alone to search one wing of JFK for an 8 hour shift. Dogs get tired and distracted easily so you have to rotate them out after about 15 mins. Eventually they will all get tired and will need to go back to their Kernel. Dogs in this situation cannot be the primary means for the above reasons. Think about how many dogs we will need for all the busy international airports we have.

Obviously you don't know who what I've done in my life. I never said it would take one dog alone, what I know about them and having been around them, it would take alot. I also know the CBP uses one or two to screen all incoming international luggage at several different airports.. That's not as in depth of a search, but you add on several more and presto. Hell, I've seen dogs catch the scent and mark on something that they weren't even looking for, and that was while they weren't even looking.

Plus, what's the whole point of security? It's a deterrent, and I for one think that just the site of a german shepherd would do a lot, some people, and especially our middle eastern friends, don't really like dogs one bit.

Are dogs the 100% answer? No, of course not, but it'll make people "feel" a lot better, plus when used in combination with other means (metal detectors, wands, actual human interaction and questions) then you get a pretty good screen.

As for finding bomb material, whatever happened to the air puff machines they used back about 4 or 5 years ago? Those were supposed to find any trace of bomb residue and were a helluva lot less invasive than some scanner or rub down.

 

[Swanee]

Suggest to me how you would make it less offensive. How exactly would you make it less offensive to a whinny unrealistic population. This is not Customer Service here. You are being searched for possible weapons end of story. Why are your feelings getting hurt over nothing? What are people turning to these days? We got other issues to worry about. Why don't you tell the fvcking terrorist trying to kill you he should be less offensive.

You're hopeless, and you don't seem to understand the real issue here. I'm not a criminal, and should not be treated like a suspected criminal. I'm willing to accept risk if it means keeping personal liberties. Air travel is pretty safe. It was safe before the body scanners and enhanced pat downs. There is surprising evidence that these scanners are very expensive and would not have seen the so called underwear bomb. The pat downs... so you think that someone who does 3 or 4 thousand pat downs a day is vigilant? I think not. Especially when they don't have any compassion for the people they are patting down. I suspect you are a terrorist. Why? Because you bought a plane ticket... That's just like saying I suspect you for murder because you bought a hammer and the victim was bludgeoned to death.

 

[Python]

Suggest to me how you would make it less offensive. How exactly would you make it less offensive to a whinny unrealistic population. This is not Customer Service here. You are being searched for possible weapons end of story. Why are your feelings getting hurt over nothing? What are people turning to these days? We got other issues to worry about. Why don't you tell the fvcking terrorist trying to kill you he should be less offensive.

The constitution. We're Americans, not criminals. Civil liberties are a big deal in this country and I'm surprised you don't seem to care much about them. We were founded on the premise that a government will protect us without getting in our faces. http://www.fuckthetsa.com/

 

[Recovering LSO]

^ you know what else violates my civil liberties? getting blown the fuck up in an airplane by a shit head with explosives strapped to his taint. What's the ACLU gonna do me for then?

 

[insanebikerboy]

^ you know what else violates my civil liberties? getting blown the fuck up in an airplane by a shit head with explosives strapped to his taint. What's the ACLU gonna do me for then?

It wasn't the TSA agent that stopped the fucks from trying to blow up airplanes by lighting their junk on fire, it was people on the airplane. If you're gonna blindly rely on the TSA, or any other agency for that matter, to provide all of your security then it's cattle being led to slaughter. Violating my civil liberties isn't gonna stop the next whatever it is, because the TSA is purely reactive and not proactive, so someone may try and blow up another plane and all the while we are being force fed into accepting violations of personal privacy and civil liberties.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Let's go back to how it used to be. Bring all the liquids you want. Keep your shoes on. Metal detectors and x-ray machines only. BUT when we have another hijacking and terrorist attack, no one is allowed to bitch about airline security. Not a single word. Y'all got what you wanted.

OR, we stick with the current construct and have terrorists make it through security - and we'll wait on the "untrustworthy" passengers to subdue/thwart the attack AFTER they've gotten through the "last line of defense" that the TSA provides. Near as I can tell, none of the TSA's policies have been all that successful - since terrorists still made it through security (shoe bomber, underwear bomber) and it was the passengers that are now being treated with less respect, dignity, and civil rights than criminals - that stopped it.

 

[Python]

^ you know what else violates my civil liberties? getting blown the fuck up in an airplane by a shit head with explosives strapped to his taint. What's the ACLU gonna do me for then?

So how much are you or anybody else willing to compromise? We can get 100% secure if we live in a "1984" type of country. If I don't want to get blown up that's what I'll ask for, but frankly I'd still like to live in a country where Thomas Jefferson isn't rolling around in his grave by seeing what civil liberties the citizens are willing to forfeit. There is definitely a better way to get secure that doesn't involve a perpetual paranoia.

Edit: Keeping your guard up and being smart is good, paranoia is not. I don't' want anybody to think that I advocate letting our guard down based on the last sentence.