My TSA Diatribe

[The Annoyed Man]

A few years ago you could have seen me "browbeating" someone, but unless you were there for the whole ten minute episode, you would only think that I was nasty, not that I was reacting to extreme provocation.

In the case that I witnessed, I saw everything from beginning to end. I was the next in line to go through the metal detector when this elderly gentleman walked up to me and said that he was about to miss his flight, and would I mind if he butted in front of me. He was a nice old guy, and I said of course, go ahead. So he quickly starts to take his belt off, and the jerk from TSA starts shouting at him in a very deliberately angry manner to take off his shoes. The old guy, who still in the middle of taking off his belt, says "I will, just give me a second." Nazi-boy goes ballistic and starts threatening the old man with "You get those shoes off right now, or I'm going to throw you in that scanner over there!" The old man says I'm trying! And the jerk keeps yelling at him. The only good thing about it was that while Nazi-boy is beating up on this old guy, someone else - of a more rational frame of mind - handles me. I have never personally witnessed such unprofessional behavior from a security person or LEO in my life.

[blue]

It HAS to be a federal operation, because no airline/airport can do groping without getting SUED big time, and ARRESTED for sex crimes on the spot.


.........................
Feel sorry for the local LEO who sees activities, which a mile away, would be a instant solid arrest, And has to hold back.
Ditto the parents of children.
All on security cameras and saved.




Pray for America.

[chartreuse]

TSA had little to do with it after he started his strip-tease, other than the supervisor asking him to dress and be patted down, which he refused to comply with.

With respect, Jim, that's just one way of putting it (though the strip-tease reference seems a little pejorative, IMHO).

Another way of describing events might be that the supervisor demanded that he pretend to conceal something so that the TSA could pretend to look for it.

[TexasGal]

Saw on the news where TSA released an informational video telling flyers what their "options" are. Then a man very patiently explained in a news interview that this groping was necessary for security with the more resourceful terrorists they are seeing. He underlined it was truly necessary to stop planes from being bombed out of the sky.
Oh, come on. I highly doubt every single piece of luggage is being patted down so well inside and out and the pat downs do nothing about people with "internalized" bombs. At least until the TSA decides it has to search there too

[sjfcontrol]

Saw on the news where TSA released an informational video telling flyers what their "options" are. Then a man very patiently explained in a news interview that this groping was necessary for security with the more resourceful terrorists they are seeing. He underlined it was truly necessary to stop planes from being bombed out of the sky.
Oh, come on. I highly doubt every single piece of luggage is being patted down so well inside and out and the pat downs do nothing about people with "internalized" bombs. At least until the TSA decides it has to search there too

Next Stop -- Pre-boarding colonoscopy screenings. What are they going to do if you opt-out of that?

[chasfm11]

In the thread that I started, viewtopic.php?f=94&t=39706, I placed the blame where I think that it belongs - with the Washington politicians.

To me there is a lot of parallelism between the airport screenings and the schools' "zero tolerance" for weapons policy
1. They both start with a real problem
2. They both have a stated good intention as their outcome
3. They have evolved into a set of procedures that is indiscriminately administered
4. The effectiveness of the results are questionable at best. Many good people (students) are victimized while there is little effect on those who could do harm and were the original target of the exercise.

One of Jim's posts summarized this best: he was able to get a firearm past security the majority of the time in his testing while normal TSA actions continuously "disarm" little old ladies by taking their fingernail clippers.

I do not blame the local TSA agents as I agree that they are simply following the procedures that they were given. That said, I've spent a fair amount of time flying from places like Chicago and Detroit where some (many) of the TSA agents speak only limited English. For a country with such a bad unemployment problem, you would think that a TSA hiring criteria for a position which involves interacting with the public would be a reasonable capability in English. I do understand that some (many?) Travelers at US airports also do not speak English.

There was a news report this past weekend about Al Queda planning to kill us "by 1,000 cuts" They spent $4K to build the Yemen bombs while we spend $bull on questionable (I wanted to say pointless) security.

Let's look at all of the recent attempts on air planes"
1. ALL of the passengers involved did not board in a US airport
2. None of the security procedures worked on those threats. They were thwarted by independent citizens acting together.

So, in conclusion, let's start invasive scrutiny of all US based travelers. (Tin foil hat on). To me, this is just another step in trying to control the US public and has little basis in fact. This is simply another "crisis too good to waste." (Tin foil hat off)

[terryg]

In the thread that I started, viewtopic.php?f=94&t=39706, I placed the blame where I think that it belongs - with the Washington politicians.

Yeah, sorry about that chasfm11. I started this thread to avoid hijacking the productive ongoing discussions there - I just wanted to vent my rantings.

[chasfm11]

In the thread that I started, viewtopic.php?f=94&t=39706, I placed the blame where I think that it belongs - with the Washington politicians.

Yeah, sorry about that chasfm11. I started this thread to avoid hijacking the productive ongoing discussions there - I just wanted to vent my rantings.

No problem. This thread went in a different direction that I started mine and it has been an interesting dialogue.

[jimlongley]

TSA had little to do with it after he started his strip-tease, other than the supervisor asking him to dress and be patted down, which he refused to comply with.

With respect, Jim, that's just one way of putting it (though the strip-tease reference seems a little pejorative, IMHO).

Another way of describing events might be that the supervisor demanded that he pretend to conceal something so that the TSA could pretend to look for it.

And equally with respect, the original article could be viewed as being pejorative too, in the other direction. The way it was presented, he performed his little burlesque act, sans baloons or feathers, just to prove that he was not carrying anything nasty or whatever, but in my view he carried it well beyond the ridiculous into the sublime.

I am sure that nobody saw more of him than they would at the beach, but he still probably violated a half dozen laws, none of which are TSA specific except that he began the screening process and then refused to finish it or follow reasonable instructions. Not finishing the screening process once begin, has been a trigger for suspicion since before TSA took over.

One of Jim's posts summarized this best: he was able to get a firearm past security the majority of the time in his testing while normal TSA actions continuously "disarm" little old ladies by taking their fingernail clippers.

I don't know if things have changed since I left, but we had stopped the nail clipper thing in 2004, it was obviously carrying things too far. When I traveled constantly for a year after I left TSA, my nail clippers were never questioned, nor were they this past year when my wife and I flew to Hawai'i.

They even let my wife's knitting and crochet needles through and one of them was the size of the folding bayonette on the old SKS.

That said, I've spent a fair amount of time flying from places like Chicago and Detroit where some (many) of the TSA agents speak only limited English. For a country with such a bad unemployment problem, you would think that a TSA hiring criteria for a position which involves interacting with the public would be a reasonable capability in English.

Maybe TSA has watered down their standards, but again when we went through the hiring and testing process part of it was a comprehension and usage test. I will admit to being amazed that a couple of the people I wound up working with had passed that part, but, with few exceptions, they were weeded out in the first few weeks. I know the test had points added for military credit which would explain one of our supervisors who had trouble understanding plain English, but it was his first and only language, so it may have been something else, like he didn't like to hear that he was interpreting TSA's rules on employees (without regard for gender) in a manner inconsistent with the language used.

Again, I could tell you tales of all kinds of behind the scenes stuff, and abuses of the system, but by the time I left after three years, most of that had been corrected and my ongoing friendships with a lot of those old co-workers who have stayed on, tell me that there hasn't been any, or much, change since.

[chartreuse]

TSA had little to do with it after he started his strip-tease, other than the supervisor asking him to dress and be patted down, which he refused to comply with.

With respect, Jim, that's just one way of putting it (though the strip-tease reference seems a little pejorative, IMHO).

Another way of describing events might be that the supervisor demanded that he pretend to conceal something so that the TSA could pretend to look for it.

And equally with respect, the original article could be viewed as being pejorative too, in the other direction. The way it was presented, he performed his little burlesque act, sans baloons or feathers, just to prove that he was not carrying anything nasty or whatever, but in my view he carried it well beyond the ridiculous into the sublime.

I am sure that nobody saw more of him than they would at the beach, but he still probably violated a half dozen laws, none of which are TSA specific except that he began the screening process and then refused to finish it or follow reasonable instructions. Not finishing the screening process once begin, has been a trigger for suspicion since before TSA took over.

But isn't the ridiculousness of it the whole point, both of his actions and the newspapers slant on the coverage? I'm not having a pop at you, rather at the idiots who drafted a policy that requires a man to cover exposed skin so that a screener can pretend to look for something that he knows isn't there.

I very much doubt that he violated any laws unrelated to airport screening. No shirt, no shoes, no service is a civil matter. In any event, he was arrested only for videoptaping the encounter and for not completing the screening process. But here's the kicker - according to his lawyer, he didn't refuse to complete the screening. The TSA refused to complete the process unless he put extra clothes on, then had him arrested under what some are suggesting might be false pretences.

We'll see how it pans out in court, but it's clear to many that the enhanced pat downs are designed as a humiliation technique intended to coerce people into the naked scanners. This man's response - to demonstrate that he would neither be humiliated nor coerced, is surely a perfectly rational response by a free citizen.

[hirundo82]

Saw on the news where TSA released an informational video telling flyers what their "options" are. Then a man very patiently explained in a news interview that this groping was necessary for security with the more resourceful terrorists they are seeing. He underlined it was truly necessary to stop planes from being bombed out of the sky.

What "more resourceful terrorists" are they seeing? TSA has never stopped a terrorist, and all the threats on planes since 9/11 have been poorly-trained and poorly equipped extremists on overseas flights.

It's going to be interesting when we start seeing better-trained terrorists thanks to training in the Afghan army by US military personnel.

[chasfm11]

Jim, I looked at pictures of the boxes of recently "confiscated" items. I would judge 80% of small knives collected to be slightly ahead of nail clippers on a lethal scale and no where near the lethal threat that your smuggled guns were. That was my point. While it is possible that a couple of individuals with small blades might attempt to take over an airplane again, with the understanding that the American public now has and the shielded cockpit doors, that likelyhood, using a small knife, is pretty remote. The fact that you were able to smuggle guns on confirms the quality of the resulting "protection,." So a lot of people lost there small pocket knives for no good purpose other than to appease the out of touch bureaucrats who still think it is a good idea. For the record, I don't think that people need to carry knives on as carry on items but confiscating them is NOT improving security.

My most recent flight out of Chicago was in August, 2010. My screening line contained two TSA workers of questionable English skills. My major concern with this is not that I care whether they speak English or not but that they may be giving me instructions which I cannot comprehend and therefore cannot follow. Given the potentially volatile environment that can result from a perceived failure to follow instructions (and as evidenced by the speed with which several of the recent events escalated), I'm not comfortable in going through screening any more. I have some documented hearing loss but given the apparent TSA policy of unwillingness to consider anything that a passenger says (evidence: the ostomy bag incident), I'm not certain that I could communicate that any hesitation on my part is a lack of comprehension rather than an unwillingness to cooperate. I've seen a number of folks older than myself who had even worse problems.

I no longer have to fly for business regularly. Until a more sane policy is adapted, I will not travel for pleasure either. Even in the event of a death in the family (our nearest relatives are 1,500 miles away), we will be driving, not flying. I suspect that I'm not alone. The airline industry continues to struggle and the security situation is likely to do further harm, just when we need all of the jobs in this country that we can get. This is one of the best cases of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" that I can think of. Our airlines will be very secure soon - because they will have few travelers. It will be another triumph for big government

[jimlongley]

TSA had little to do with it after he started his strip-tease, other than the supervisor asking him to dress and be patted down, which he refused to comply with.

With respect, Jim, that's just one way of putting it (though the strip-tease reference seems a little pejorative, IMHO).

Another way of describing events might be that the supervisor demanded that he pretend to conceal something so that the TSA could pretend to look for it.

And equally with respect, the original article could be viewed as being pejorative too, in the other direction. The way it was presented, he performed his little burlesque act, sans baloons or feathers, just to prove that he was not carrying anything nasty or whatever, but in my view he carried it well beyond the ridiculous into the sublime.

I am sure that nobody saw more of him than they would at the beach, but he still probably violated a half dozen laws, none of which are TSA specific except that he began the screening process and then refused to finish it or follow reasonable instructions. Not finishing the screening process once begin, has been a trigger for suspicion since before TSA took over.

But isn't the ridiculousness of it the whole point, both of his actions and the newspapers slant on the coverage? I'm not having a pop at you, rather at the idiots who drafted a policy that requires a man to cover exposed skin so that a screener can pretend to look for something that he knows isn't there.

I very much doubt that he violated any laws unrelated to airport screening. No shirt, no shoes, no service is a civil matter. In any event, he was arrested only for videoptaping the encounter and for not completing the screening process. But here's the kicker - according to his lawyer, he didn't refuse to complete the screening. The TSA refused to complete the process unless he put extra clothes on, then had him arrested under what some are suggesting might be false pretences.

We'll see how it pans out in court, but it's clear to many that the enhanced pat downs are designed as a humiliation technique intended to coerce people into the naked scanners. This man's response - to demonstrate that he would neither be humiliated nor coerced, is surely a perfectly rational response by a free citizen.

Yes, it, the ridiculousness is the whole point, and now his lawyer is compounding it. By his action he refused further screening, by not complying with a reasonable request to put his clothes back on and follow established procedure. TSA could not have him arrested, that is a decision for local LEOs, TSA can only file charges through their process, which does not involve arrest. I don't see his response as either rational or reasonable.

[VMI77]

I'm not certain that I could communicate that any hesitation on my part is a lack of comprehension rather than an unwillingness to cooperate.

I agree with you for the most part but take a little exception to this one statement. The system is the way it is, partially at least, because too many people have been willing to cooperate with too much --and not just at airports. You're probably a pretty reasonable man and a law abiding citizen, as are most people on this board, and I think your statement that you have fears about flying, because a failure to comprehend might be construed as a failure to comply, is a serious indictment of how out of control the system has become. And if, for example, the TSA (and by TSA I mean Big Sis and her ilk, not the employees who have to carry out the policies) has credible evidence or reason to believe that Americans are planting weapons and explosives on their own children, then the war on terrorism is already over, and we lost.

[Tamie]

The TSA agent at the checkpoint is not responsible for the selection of screening machines or for creating the policies around the use of those machines and the "enhanced patdown" procedures. Very few of those folks are in a position where they could take care of their families if they didn't have the salary and benefits from their work.

Drug dealers do it for the money. So do bank robbers. Are the police going to stop arresting them now?

People are responsible for their actions and if I remember history class "just following orders" is not a valid defense.