Texas VS TSA

[GostHacked]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/texas-legislators-tsa-mess-texas/story?id=13695896

John Murphy, U.S. Attorney for the western district of Texas, wrote a letter to leaders of the Texas state legislature indicating that if the bill is enacted, the TSA would "likely be required to cancel any flight … for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew."

Sounds like the TSA DHS is doing some blackmail here.

As the article states only 3% of people get the pat down. More would get the patdown if they refused the radiation scanners. So the TSA is threatening to cancell all flights if the bill is passed!??? I find it odd that Texas would need to actually pass a bill/law to essentially enforce and protect the 4th Amendmant. That might give you an indication on the current state of affairs. Laws need to be passed to enforce or ensure the constitution. That means there have been laws passed to circumvent the constitution.

There are many other states now trying to pass similar legislation. That also is an indication of how far and beyond the TSA has gone from just their initial inception and stated role. Most of us are aware that this is all security theater to make you feel safe without actually making you safer. Besides, accidents with planes still do happen, so you cannot ever make air travel 100% safe.

[Michael Hardner]

If people don't want to be patted down, then they can travel in other ways. I'm not sure why there's such a disconnect between what the TSA is allowed to do with you versus everybody else.

The fact is that these security measures provide an obstacle that anybody has to work around in order to execute a plan to disrupt air travel. Removing such measures make it easier to execute such a plan.

Also, airport security is part of the US federal mandate. If they want to pass laws that make their state unsafe, then they can do so and we'll all travel to Texas by covered wagon again - but only if we have to.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Also, airport security is part of the US federal mandate. If they want to pass laws that make their state unsafe, then they can do so and we'll all travel to Texas by covered wagon again - but only if we have to.

Well, to be fair, travel by covered wagon was not very "safe" either. The wagon master would implement "security" procedures and wouldn't you know it, some idiot would bitch about his rights!

[Guest American Woman]

For the life of me, I can't understand why Gosthacked is always so fired up about the security measures at airports in the United States. As I've pointed out repeatedly, they don't benefit anyone other than those getting on the plane, so I don't understand how it can be some evil plot by the government to deprive people of their freedoms. To what gain?

[Michael Hardner]

I suspect that Ghosthacked is a follower (not in the cult sense... well... let's hope not) of Alex Jones, a media court jester who likes to trumpet conspiracies, loss of freedoms and what have you for the entertainment of those of us who don't believe him.

Those who do believe him, well... let's hope their numbers are small. Jones pushes New World Order, 9/11 conspiracies and so on. All of these are good for a laugh, I suppose, until large numbers of people start believing them.

[GostHacked]

I suspect that Ghosthacked is a follower (not in the cult sense... well... let's hope not) of Alex Jones, a media court jester who likes to trumpet conspiracies, loss of freedoms and what have you for the entertainment of those of us who don't believe him.

Yes I do listen to Jones. I do like what he has to say. He was one of the people to bring this whole TSA thing to light before the MSM got on board with it. There is enough video evidence out there that shows the TSA doing invasive pat downs to children, and old men in wheelchairs (cause I am sure a 6 year old is a terrorist threat) There is evidence these TSA guys are stealing from passengers. There is video evidence of TSA people taking down people at the airports.

Do a simple youtube search and check it out for yourself. Don't take my word for it, and don't take Jones' word for it either. He will tell you the same thing. Go find the evidence yourself, it is there.

Those who do believe him, well... let's hope their numbers are small. Jones pushes New World Order, 9/11 conspiracies and so on. All of these are good for a laugh, I suppose, until large numbers of people start believing them.

I've believed 9/11 was an inside job long before I heard about Jones and started listening to his show. But that is another topic debated at length here already, so I am not going to get into it.

If Jones is completely wrong about it, why would states even need to introduce legislation in order to bar the TSA from violating part of the constitution?

[GostHacked]

For the life of me, I can't understand why Gosthacked is always so fired up about the security measures at airports in the United States.

Because it's more often than not, a precursor to what will happen in Canada. Body scanners are already being introduced at Canadian airports. So the invasive pat downs are soon to follow.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, they don't benefit anyone other than those getting on the plane, so I don't understand how it can be some evil plot by the government to deprive people of their freedoms. To what gain?

To what gain? That is a very good question.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes I do listen to Jones. I do like what he has to say. He was one of the people to bring this whole TSA thing to light before the MSM got on board with it. There is enough video evidence out there that shows the TSA doing invasive pat downs to children, and old men in wheelchairs (cause I am sure a 6 year old is a terrorist threat) There is evidence these TSA guys are stealing from passengers. There is video evidence of TSA people taking down people at the airports.

Do a simple youtube search and check it out for yourself. Don't take my word for it, and don't take Jones' word for it either. He will tell you the same thing. Go find the evidence yourself, it is there.

I believe that these things happen, but it doesn't change my mind as to whether searches are necessary. Why would it ?

If Jones is completely wrong about it, why would states even need to introduce legislation in order to bar the TSA from violating part of the constitution?

States don't have jurisdiction over the TSA so that question is nonsense as far as I can tell.

[dre]

If people don't want to be patted down, then they can travel in other ways. I'm not sure why there's such a disconnect between what the TSA is allowed to do with you versus everybody else.

The fact is that these security measures provide an obstacle that anybody has to work around in order to execute a plan to disrupt air travel. Removing such measures make it easier to execute such a plan.

Also, airport security is part of the US federal mandate. If they want to pass laws that make their state unsafe, then they can do so and we'll all travel to Texas by covered wagon again - but only if we have to.

The fact is that these security measures provide an obstacle that anybody has to work around in order to execute a plan to disrupt air travel. Removing such measures make it easier to execute such a plan.

You could make that argument about all kinds of measures though, and justify virtually anything in the name of "safety". I fly about 20 times a year, and Id take a wild guess that I have about a 1 in 500000 chance of dying in a terrorist aircraft attack. Im just fine with that... now you could implement all kinds of security measures that might get those odds down to 1 in 600000... but I just dont think its worth spending money on. Flying has always been and still is extremely safe statistically, that it just seems like an odd thing to allocate resources to considering theres so many other more dangerous activities. That doesnt mean that you dont do the easy common sense stuff though... for example cockpit doors are cheap.

We should put our risk management dollars where the risk is.

[bush_cheney2004]

....We should put our risk management dollars where the risk is.

The risk has far less to do with preserving your individual life or safety than it has to do with the demonstrated threat to potential impact targets and the economic impact of another round of disruption. As you have indicated, there is no such thing as safe....there is only probability and statistics.

People die in civil aviation crashes routinely, and will continue to do so.

Edited May 31, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

You could make that argument about all kinds of measures though, and justify virtually anything in the name of "safety". ...

We should put our risk management dollars where the risk is.

Sure, but pat-downs seem to be a good investment in this regard.

[Pliny]

I don't believe pat downs are a good investment.

My take on this type of security is that it is an inability on the part of the State to observe, which is most important to the State and leaves everyone suspect and subject to equal intrusion. Everyone is encouraged to act in the same religiously solemn manner - "no jokes please or go into that room". Actual conversation is deemed to be an attempt at subversion.

You see, the State is very smart and people entrusted with jobs at airports are not very smart so the less actual thinking they have to do the better. Having to use one's own judgement must be minimized if not entrely eliminated. Heaven's to Murgatroyd, they might resort to some despicable type of racial or ethnic profiling or some other politically incorrect embarrassment to good old all around equal treatment of everyone. Owww...sorry! Stabbed myself with my knitting needle

[Michael Hardner]

I don't believe pat downs are a good investment.

My take on this type of security is that it is an inability on the part of the State to observe, which is most important to the State and leaves everyone suspect and subject to equal intrusion. Everyone is encouraged to act in the same religiously solemn manner - "no jokes please or go into that room". Actual conversation is deemed to be an attempt at subversion.

You see, the State is very smart and people entrusted with jobs at airports are not very smart so the less actual thinking they have to do the better. Having to use one's own judgement must be minimized if not entrely eliminated. Heaven's to Murgatroyd, they might resort to some despicable type of racial or ethnic profiling or some other politically incorrect embarrassment to good old all around equal treatment of everyone. Owww...sorry! Stabbed myself with my knitting needle

Ethnic profiling is a non-starter because it's easy to get around. Search everyone and nobody gets through. Patting people down takes a few seconds, negligible cost.

[GostHacked]

Ethnic profiling is a non-starter because it's easy to get around. Search everyone and nobody gets through. Patting people down takes a few seconds, negligible cost.

Why would it be easy to get around? If you are not targetting the group that is said to be wanting to bring terror into your life, why would you screen everybody wasting time, instead of focusing on the group that is causing the terror? If you have one bad apple in the class causing a disturbance all the time, do you treat all the students in the class the same or do you deal with the clown?

Even when everyone is screened, people still get through.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-screeners/story?id=12412458

Check the video, lots of failures there.

Last fall, as he had done hundreds of times, Iranian-American businessman Farid Seif passed through security at a Houston airport and boarded an international flight.

He didn't realize he had forgotten to remove the loaded snub nose "baby" Glock pistol from his computer bag. But TSA officers never noticed as his bag glided along the belt and was x-rayed. When he got to his hotel after the three-hour flight, he was shocked to discover the gun traveled unnoticed from Houston.

"It's just impossible to miss it, you know. I mean, this is not a small gun," Seif told ABC News. "How can you miss it? You cannot miss it."

But the TSA did miss it, and despite what most people believe about the painstaking effort to screen airline passengers and their luggage before they enter the terminal, it was not that unusual.

The pat downs failed in this instance.

I've talked about the TSA coming to rail and other sites. Remember, Obama said, if you dont want the pat downs, don't fly. But in the very near future, you will get patted down on the rail lines, possibly public mass transit, and even stadiums and shopping malls. How much is one willing to give up for security?

You have a much higher chance of dying from cancer, or a car accident, or a hundred other things before terrorism.

[Michael Hardner]

Why would it be easy to get around? If you are not targetting the group that is said to be wanting to bring terror into your life, why would you screen everybody wasting time, instead of focusing on the group that is causing the terror? If you have one bad apple in the class causing a disturbance all the time, do you treat all the students in the class the same or do you deal with the clown?

If you create a profile, then they will recruit people who don't fit the profile.

Even when everyone is screened, people still get through.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-screeners/story?id=12412458

Check the video, lots of failures there.

The pat downs failed in this instance.

I don't think there's an expectation of 100% success. The point is, there's no point in basing a plan around sneaking something onto a plane if there is screening.

I've talked about the TSA coming to rail and other sites. Remember, Obama said, if you dont want the pat downs, don't fly. But in the very near future, you will get patted down on the rail lines, possibly public mass transit, and even stadiums and shopping malls. How much is one willing to give up for security?

I'm willing to give up a few minutes of my time. I suspect that most others are too.

You have a much higher chance of dying from cancer, or a car accident, or a hundred other things before terrorism.

Let's work on all the risks in a sensible manner.

[Pliny]

Ethnic profiling is a non-starter because it's easy to get around. Search everyone and nobody gets through. Patting people down takes a few seconds, negligible cost.

Profiling is a non-starter, I agree. It isn't politically correct. And it is so easy to get around when TSA agents stupidly employ it and ignore the possiblity that granny may not be who she really says she is.

That's what I mean by lacking any ability to judge or discern anything from direct information or observation. Heck they can't even observe a gun in a briefcase because they are taught their observation is fairly useless in detecting anything anyway. It's kind of a catch 22. We don't want to rely on your observation of anything but we want you to observe everything.

[GostHacked]

Here is why profiling is needed.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/26/florida.tsa.incident/index.html?&hpt=hp_c1

(CNN) -- The Transportation Security Administration stood by its security officers Sunday after a Florida woman complained that her cancer-stricken, 95-year-old mother was patted down and forced to remove her adult diaper while going through security.

Reports of the incident took hold in social media, with scores of comments on the topic and reposts appearing hourly on Twitter Sunday afternoon.

The TSA released a statement Sunday defending its agents' actions at the Northwest Florida Regional Airport.

"While every person and item must be screened before entering the secure boarding area, TSA works with passengers to resolve security alarms in a respectful and sensitive manner," the federal agency said. "We have reviewed the circumstances involving this screening and determined that our officers acted professionally and according to proper procedure."

[Michael Hardner]

Here is why profiling is needed.

Profiling won't stop random searches, though.

[GostHacked]

Profiling won't stop random searches, though.

Come on Mike, shake your head a bit. This is a wheelchair bound woman with cancer who wears a diaper. I am sure she is a terrorist threat. That's just wrong and degrading.

[Michael Hardner]

So what are you going to do ?

Publish a list of exceptions for criminals to plan around or rely on the discretion of agents ?

There are problems with both approaches, you see.

My problem is that this thing is being pushed by Alex Jones, which makes me think it's just a waste of energy to discuss it.

[GostHacked]

So what are you going to do ?

Publish a list of exceptions for criminals to plan around or rely on the discretion of agents ?

Would you in that position do a that kind of invasive search on an elderly woman bound to a wheelchair? How do you justify patting down and diaper searching old wheelchair bound ladies? What if that was your mother? Put yourself in their position for a moment or two. No one cares until it happens to them.

My problem is that this thing is being pushed by Alex Jones, which makes me think it's just a waste of energy to discuss it.

You think defending the rights of citizens is worth bitching about. I guess to some that's not high on their list. The issue is with the TSA and pat downs, not Alex Jones.

[M.Dancer]

Would you in that position do a that kind of invasive search on an elderly woman bound to a wheelchair? How do you justify patting down and diaper searching old wheelchair bound ladies? What if that was your mother? Put yourself in their position for a moment or two. No one cares until it happens to them.

And what criteria would you use to verify that the elderly woman is everything she claims to be?

[Michael Hardner]

Would you in that position do a that kind of invasive search on an elderly woman bound to a wheelchair? How do you justify patting down and diaper searching old wheelchair bound ladies? What if that was your mother? Put yourself in their position for a moment or two. No one cares until it happens to them.

Do you think that these people have the latitude to make these decisions entirely on their own ? I don't think that they do.

You think defending the rights of citizens is worth bitching about. I guess to some that's not high on their list. The issue is with the TSA and pat downs, not Alex Jones.

This is about as low a priority of personal rights issues as I can think of. People screaming over a minor inconvenience is typical of the crybaby culture that Alex Jones is spreading like a disease.

[GostHacked]

Do you think that these people have the latitude to make these decisions entirely on their own ? I don't think that they do.

I want thinking people on the front lines at the airport not pat down drones who are just following orders.

This is about as low a priority of personal rights issues as I can think of. People screaming over a minor inconvenience is typical of the crybaby culture that Alex Jones is spreading like a disease.

Where would you draw the line? How much freedom and rights are you willing to give up for the ruse that is security?

[Michael Hardner]

I want thinking people on the front lines at the airport not pat down drones who are just following orders.

I suspect that they already did a cost benefit analysis on this.

Where would you draw the line? How much freedom and rights are you willing to give up for the ruse that is security?

I'm not sure, but I have no problem giving up the right to get on an airplane without being searched.