...and it's getting boring to have to read things which imply it.

One could assume from this that the TSA is here to teach us to not talk back to the Authority, rather than to actually catch terrorists.

Depends on your point of view.
Dissident speech instills terror in the minds of authority.

This is the government attacking it's citizens over their opinions and beliefs, nearly making it an illegal act. That's fascism.

Complaining got you send to gulag.

That's only helpful for the 10% or so of people who are gay. As a straight guy, I'd rather have the least attractive guy doing the pat down. At least someone less attractive then myself. That way, it's him that can feel bad about themselves, not me.

I choose the body scanners, but they are annoying. I'm not too worried about the radiation, but they are slower then metal detectors. They require you to take off your belt, watch, boarding pass etc, when I can normally get through a metal detector with those still on. But worse is thinking about how there is now one more person in the world who knows how "inadequate" you are in certain proportions. It doesn't matter if that person doesn't know who you are, it still makes YOU think about it and feel bad about yourself.

The TSA did not exist on 9/11. Mohammed al-Qahtani was turned away by immigration after his flight landed in the US. He was chosen for Secondary inspection because he didn't fill out the paperwork properly. He was denied admission for a long list of suspicious activity ($2800 cash, no hotel, no return ticket, multiple stories, etc) in addition to being "creepy." That case really doesn't have much in common with what the TSA is attempting to do. That is also CBP's job. They are tasked with undesirable people out of the United States. When the TSA does their job (keeping weapons, explosives, and incendiaries off airplanes), it does not matter who boards an aircraft.

The AAPD asked numerous questions concerning the case. I explained that apart from not having a return ticket and possibly not having sufficient funds, the subject appeared to be malafide. I further explained to the AAPD that when the subject looked at me, I felt a bone chilling cold effect. The bottom line is, “He gave me the creeps”.

Full Testimony: http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/witness_melendez.htm [9-11commission.gov]

1984 was not an instruction manual.

Sincerely,

The rest of the World.

If I was an alleged terrorist (and for the record, I'M NOT) the alleged terrorist would get a job at the airport as baggage handler, or as a someone who services the planes. Then the alleged terrorist would put a bomb in some luggage, or some C4 into soda cans or something and get them on the plane - the alleged terrorist wouldn't try to get through security, unless his plan was to blow up the security checkpoint, which would also be good from a terror perspective. Then they can move the security check points outside the terminal, then those get blown up. Then move them off property and check all the people before allowing them in to the airport, then car bomb gets that.

The worst thing we ever did was change our behavior and way of life after the hijackings in the 70's and obviously after 9/11. We showed the people who would do such things that we will modify our behavior in a predicable fashion based on their actions - a very bad idea. We are now in a reactive posture. The thing that's even worse is listening to the morons who travel talk about how the "security" measures make them feel safe. Really? I have a tiger repelling rock I'd like to sell you...

The preceding is a real quote, many of you know who said it, but if not, Google it...

And for the record, fuck the TSA. By all means, investigate me. I have the ACLU's phone number right here ready to go... I've said as much directly to my congressman and senators

> Dissident speech instills terror in the minds of authority.

Not for the most part. Mostly they just find it annoying and respond by being authoritarian because they're pissed off. When reporters report on torture in Chechneya by the local strongman, they get killed because they're a pain to him. Not because the guy who tortures people every day is somehow afraid of them. He *should* be afraid of them. But mostly he's pissed at them. And he runs the apparatus of the state. He's not afraid of them--at most he's afraid that his bosses will replace him if anybody cares about new public knowledge that Russia sponsors terrorism.

Similarly (and obviously very differently, since most TSA employees are good people who are not actively torturing lots of innocent civilians, but similarly for the point about whether terror is inspired), TSA employees, like cops, are generally not terrified by dissident speech. They are annoyed by it because someone is making their day harder.

1) Use smarter screeners. We don't need better scanners or more of them, just screeners able to stay alert and recognize a problem.
2) Anything that can take down a plane (aka the pilots). As far as I'm concerned, as soon as they secured the doors, a 9/11 style attack is no longer possible (and nobody's tried it again). Killing a few passengers doesn't matter because other passengers will react quickly now to defend themselves.
3) As long as it can't blow up the plane or kill the pilots, it shouldn't be on the list anyway.
4) There's a difference between irritation and nervousness. The former is a typical reaction associated with normal travelers, the latter is an atypical reaction associated with terrorists and criminals.

We shouldn't be worried about anything getting on a plane unless it can hijack the plane or cause parts of it to rain down in little pieces. Anything else can be just as effective as a terrorist act anywhere else on the ground. We've secured cockpit doors to prevent hijackings. Now the terrorists are more interested in explosives. They've used new methods pretty much each time, and we've only been playing catch-up. What's the one common factor in all of them? Passengers reacted quickly and put a stop to it. Personally I don't mind if there's a guy on my plane who tries to light his shoe on fire, as long as flight attendants and other passengers react quickly when they see him try. So for goodness sake, let me keep my shoes on in the security checkpoint.

And let's not forget, if the terrorists are smart enough to make it to a security checkpoint without detection already, they're smart enough to get through the security checkpoint without being stopped. TSA should be our last line of defense, not our only line of defense.

Patriots opt out.

Authority without responsibility, like so many of the "warriors" in "war on terror" and the "war on drugs."

Just like people carrying drugs in their cars might suddenly get angry and combative with police about being pulled over "for no good reason".

Huh? If you ask my cop friends, this almost never happens. Usually the confrontational people are the ones with nothing to hide, and they know it. The ones with drugs in their trunk are always very reasonable, in the hopes they'll get to 'go on their way.'

The TSA has ALWAYS been about nothing more than taking away the liberty of law-abiding citizens and teaching them to subjugate themselves to the State. Their methods and actions are unconstitutional, irrational, and morally bankrupt. The only thing more pathetic than the TSA is the fact that so many citizens are willing to submit themselves to their illicit scrutiny and authority.

Frankly, I'd rather take the risk of being killed by a religious extremist (chance extremely remote) than regularly groped, prodded, scanned, documented, or otherwise subjected to the TSA (100% chance for every flight). That makes the TSA a far GREATER EVIL than the terrorists.

That makes it as effective as praying for no more attacks. Who knows if it might work? I also notice that there has been no more attacks since I got a driver's license. Maybe the terrorists are afraid that I'll run them over. That must be it - or at least you can't know that it isn't... or maybe there is something wrong with this kind of argument?

Pot? Kettle? Black?

I don't know about G.P.P., but I have yet to attack or bully a TSO. However, I most definitely speak out about TSA policies to anyone who will listen, on-line on my blog [blogspot.com] (warning -- shameless plug for my own blog), in comments to other articles (like here) or in person.

Yeah, at least it's only us "bullies" interpreting the Constitution so that it says what we want, and not someone with real power like, say, the Executive Branch doing so. Can you say, "warrantless wiretapping", "habeas corpus", "1st Amendment rights", "2nd Amendment rights", "4th Amendment rights" just as off-the-top-of-my-head examples?

:rolleyes: How, exactly, do you think we got the freedoms you so readily throw away? Civil disobedience has a long and distinguished reputation in this country. You might say the U.S. kinda even got it's start that way. Do you think Washington, Revere, Adams, Jefferson, Henry, et al were model citizens and the British just handed over sovereignty to them because they asked nicely? How about MLK, Jr.? Rosa Parks? I don't know about you, but personally, I'd feel more than just a little honored to be a "crazy person" like them.

That sentence doesn't even make logical sense -- how would it even be possible to be "too stupid to fall for a...SE trick"?!?! I think you were trying to say that if someone were to bluster their way through a checkpoint by "arrogant complaining", G.P.P. (and, I presume, anyone who agrees with him, like myself) would be first in line to complain about it, no? No, if TSA were actually taking reasonable and intelligent steps to provide for-real security (rather than security theater) and weren't trampling our liberties to do so, I'd actually be rushing to their defense if something slipped through the cracks. Excrement occurs. There's no way to provide 100% security, and it's unrealistic to expect it. However, since TSA has become so far removed from the ideals this country is supposed to stand for, I'd have to say, yes, I would be first in line to complain about -- to the extent that it serves to dismantle this abomination.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, I guess. I just can't see how a "good person" could fondle people in an airport without puking.

Cry me a river. I'm annoyed because even though I'd be one of the first ones up to defend an airliner from someone trying to blow it up, TSA wants to treat me -- and every other law-abiding citizen -- like one of the statistical anomalies who actually *does* want to bring down an airliner. That reaction is so far out of proportion to the scope of the problem that I'm continuously amazed that we are literally throwing billions of dollars at such a farce.

its funded by public dollars and just as public as the streets.

by printing something on paper, that alone does not make it correct interpretation of law.

they also post 'no photos allowed' but that is a KNOWN falsehood and of course photos are 'allowed'. they make fear-mongering rules up all the times. does not make them completely legal.

go ahead and add me to the fucking list for complaining. I stopped flying about a decade ago. my dollars are not going to help the airline industry or anything directly related. I vote with my dollars since my elected officials stopped voting for what was right.

I'm not advocating giving the government anything. If you wouldn't mouth off to the cop who pulls you over, why would you mouth off to some TSA agent who has similar power to detain you?

Your premise is false, therefore your rhetorical question without meaning.

That's not the place to try and change the system.

That's the cry of someone who wants the system kept as it is. The "official" mechanisms for changing the system don't work; they exist because they don't work. The system is stable, and one of the means by which it achieves that stability is by diverting those who would change it into ineffective paths. One of the other means, of course, is the cruder method of imprisoning or killing those who would change it.

Long before 9/11 happened I was called back to the ticket counter to open a bag on occasion, and once even stopped and questioned by a US Marshal and a DEA agent. Each time I stayed calm, answered their questions, and each time I got an apology for taking up my time, and I went on my way.

And what did all this politeness and tolerance get you? Right... more onerous searches and greater restrictions.

If you ask a TSA employee, their job is not catching terrorists. Their job is preventing "dangerous items" from getting onto an aircraft. The problem is that if that really is their job, they're horrifically bad at it.

That's not their job.

TSA was founded for several purposes:
1. To shift the power over airport security to the federal government (several subpurposes to this -- among them shifting responsibility in the case of another failure, and creating a single point of influence for contractors to target.)
2. To, simply by being created, be a visible act of "doing something", regardless of substantive effectiveness or lack thereof, in the immediate, wake of a major terrorist attack, and
3. To condition the public to accept greater arbitrary intrusions on personal liberty.

#2 was a short term goal and was probably reasonably successful (it was a political measure, and there were lots of others at the same time, so its pretty hard to isolate its effectiveness); #1 was obviously successful in general (and its subpurposes seem to have been achieved effectively). Despite some pushback over some measures, #3 seems to have been successful at least in the context in which TSA operates (though its less clear how successful it has been at conditioning the public to except more intrusion generally.)

The outcome of the Milgram experiment doesn't mean that it's OK to do bad things. It simply shows that a disappointly large percentage of people are immoral and will do immoral things when told to. TSA agents groping little girls fall into that category.

It's even worse than that. Of the several attempted airline bombings that occured since 9/11, not a single one was stopped because the would be terrorist was caught during pre-flight screening. In every single case, they managed to get the bomb past the TSA and were only foiled due to the intervention of other passengers on the flight.