# Jesse Ventura, just a tad crazy?



## billc (Nov 5, 2011)

I think Jesse might need to update his meds.

http://news.yahoo.com/ventura-miffed-court-says-hes-off-mexico-174718110.html



> Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura is so upset by the dismissal of his airport security lawsuit that he threatened Friday to apply for dual citizenship so he can spend more time in his beloved Mexico &#8212; or run for president of what he labeled "the Fascist States of America."



Well...if he is unhappy in America, he'll be thrilled with the wonderful government of Mexico.


----------



## sfs982000 (Nov 5, 2011)

Yeah you know you never know what's going to come out of Ventura's mouth when he opens it.  He's good for a laugh from time to time, but most of the time I just shake my head.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2011)

He's right about the TSA.  They are violating his rights and the rights of ever other American.  The US is giving away it's liberty for security.  I completely understand the motivation to move to another country before the situation gets really bad.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 5, 2011)

Thats the beauty of this great land nobody is keeping him here.  Bye Jesse.  Im not sure who he was making the threat too about leaving but im pretty sure for a Threat to work people need to actually see the results as a bad thing.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2011)

If all the people who care about preserving America's culture of liberty leave, what do you think will happen here?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 5, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If all the people who care about preserving America's culture of liberty leave, what do you think will happen here?


I didnt say I wanted people to leave But I think the years of Steriods and bumps to the head have fried poor jesse.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2011)

I worked for his campaign in college. He's a real guy that is a lot smarter then people realize.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 5, 2011)

Ventura's a showman. He knows how to get attention. It made him a success in 3 industries now. (Pro wrestling, Hollywood and politics).

He's pissed because tossing his suit on BS grounds is a bit of a slap. But he's in a better position than I am to smack the pedophiles in the TSA around, and I hope he keeps on fighting against intrusive and ineffective security theater.


----------



## billc (Nov 5, 2011)

Yes...and going to Mexico would be better how?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Yes...and going to Mexico would be better how?



No winter to speak of. At around 28%, Mexico's top-bracket income tax rate is lower than that of the U.S. There's a much lower cost of living and housing. Medical costs are lower.  Medicines are cheaper, and many drugs that are prescription drugs in the U.S. are available over the counter.

In other words, your dollar goes further.

The food is great-and usually locally grown: there's good beef, fruit and sea food. As long as one avoids the border regions, Copper Canyon (sob!), and parts of Sinaloa, there reallly isn't much in the way of drug violence, except for the occasional foray into once-sacred resorts. 

Jesse's lived in Mexico since something like 2006;his house is in Baja California Sur- it's_* nice*_ there. I had a condo in San Jose Del Cabo until last year, myself, and keep my boat in San Carlos now-it's an easier drive for me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2011)

A friend of mine's father is a retired miner from Minnesota. He moved to Baha and eats filet mignon when ever he wants. Certain parts of Mexico are damn good and if things keep going like they are North of the border, Mexico may be building the border fence.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 5, 2011)

Mexico was nice I just got back few weeks ago but Im sure I would want to live there.  Like I said the great thing about this country is your free to leave whenever you want.  No need for empty threats.  I always find it funny when these rich hollywood types make stupid threats to leave when they dont get their way. Well "Dont let the door hit you where the good lord split ya"


----------



## seasoned (Nov 5, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> He's right about the TSA. They are violating his rights and the rights of ever other American. _*The US is giving away it's liberty for security*_. I completely understand the motivation to move to another country before the situation gets really bad.


How do you have the type of security needed to stop the obvious threat to our country we have, with out sacrificing something. I am not sticking up for the TSA, but, their following directives from someone. Or, are they just winging it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 5, 2011)

seasoned said:


> How do you have the type of security needed to stop the obvious threat to our country we have, with out sacrificing something. I am not sticking up for the TSA, but, their following directives from someone. Or, are they just winging it.



They're reacting and winging it as they go, inconsistently. 
All those water bottles, snow globes etc they confiscate at the gate?
Tossed in a trash can for a janitor to dispose of later.  If they were a real risk, they'd treat them like potential explosives.
They don't screen all cargo despite a legal requirement to do so. Terrorists -are- planting test packets in cargo. 
Despite molesting kids, leering at your wife, and cupping your balls, they still consistently fail to find bowie knives, 12" razors and -loaded- firearms in -xrayed- carry ons.
They still have passengers getting -on planes- without tickets. Who made it past 2-3 layers of TSA screening.

The TSA is as effective at security as a nylon stocking is as birth control.


----------



## Buka (Nov 5, 2011)

TSA sucks. Jessie rocks.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 5, 2011)

seasoned said:


> How do you have the type of security needed to stop the obvious threat to our country we have, with out sacrificing something. I am not sticking up for the TSA, but, their following directives from someone. Or, are they just winging it.



We learn to live with all kinds of dangers.  I choose to surf and I know I could drown, for example.  There is no way the government can protect us against a diffuse and low probability threat like terrorism without completely locking us down into a police state...and even then, they still can't.  I'd rather take responsibility for my own safety, carry a gun or a weapon if the risk warranted it for example, and preserve all of my Constitutional freedoms.  TSA and Homeland Security are gigantic wastes of money and probably have very little to do with actual terrorism and much more to do with locking down the country at home to preserve the Empire abroad.  

Look at the troubles we see now and imagine the **** that's going hit the fan when the government raises taxes, cuts pensions, confiscates retirements, and inflates the value of our currency away to pay for the 700 plus military bases, eight plus foreign wars, and trillions in international banker bailouts.  We ain't seen nothing yet.

Vote Ron Paul 2012.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 5, 2011)

seasoned said:


> How do you have the type of security needed to stop the obvious threat to our country we have, with out sacrificing something. I am not sticking up for the TSA, but, their following directives from someone. Or, are they just winging it.



Two words: El Al :

Sure. They profile. If the model is followed correctly, most people won't even notice. It would require paying more than the TSA does;most of those miserable D students who do the actual "screening" (it's not screening, it's fear-driven pseudo-security psychodrama) are paid between $17K and $30K. 

They *suck*-big time. :lol:

El Al, on the other hand, has managed to be the Israeli national airline and have only one flight hijacked since 1948


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 5, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Two words: El Al :
> 
> Sure. They profile. If the model is followed correctly, most people won't even notice. It would require paying more than the TSA does;most of those miserable D students who do the actual "screening" (it's not screening, it's fear-driven pseudo-security psychodrama) are paid between $17K and $30K.
> 
> ...



And there is not just one security checkpoint. The entire airport is a security checkpoint. People look at you. People ask you innicent question. The profile behaviour. And it's actually faster than most US airport because ther is not one chokepoint dedicated to security. Once in a while, people are puuled out of the check in line for questioning. Questions can be inane. But you never know if you were picked because they wanted to question you, or because they wanted to observe the reacton of the guy next to you at NOT being picked.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 5, 2011)

*Item*
*Carry-on*
*Checked*
Gel-type candles
No
Yes
Gel shoe inserts - Gel shoe inserts are not permitted, but shoes constructed with gel heels are allowed and must be removed and screened.
No
Yes
Non-flammable liquid, gel, or aerosol paint
Yes - 3.4 ounces (100ml) or smaller container
Yes
Flammable liquid, gel, or aerosol paint
No
No
_*Snow globes and like decorations regardless of size or amount of liquid inside, even with documentation.*_
No
Yes




A small snip-it from the TSA web site for legal carry on. *I could not care less about the TSA.* Bottom line is, if I carry any of the above items on board a plane, I deserve to get them taken away. As I stated in my post, *I'm not sticking up for the TSA*, just the rules in place.


When I travel, all I want to do is get from point (A) to point (B). My son, daughter, wife and I have all traveled separately, and together over the years, and have never had a lick of a problem. When the time comes where I get hassled, like some of you have, I will join the ranks of being pissed off at them. But, for now, regardless of how much they make per hour, they are the obstacle I need to pass, so I can get to where I am going.


It didn't used to be to the extent it is today, _*but freedom comes at a price*_. Join the military, and it could cost you your life. Don't follow the directive of LE when they say "let me see your hands, and it could cost you your life. 


Aside from being fondled by TSA, and no matter how stupid they are, and no matter where they are on the pay scale, for that small window of time, you are in their jurisdiction, and they are in charge. I will say it one more time, *"I don't care about, and am not sticking up for, the TSA".* But, someone has them in place for a reason, and I don't believe they are winging it, but are being allowed to do the job of screening plane passengers................. Some may be overzealous, but this has not been my experience.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2011)

seasoned said:


> Aside from being fondled by TSA, and no matter how stupid they are, and no matter where they are on the pay scale, for that small window of time, you are in their jurisdiction, and they are in charge.



In the United States, the Constitution is in charge.  This document recognizes our natural rights and everybody within it's jurisdiction is mandated to follow this document as the supreme law of the land.

If we recognize the TSA as a legitimate organization with legitimate powers, we're saying that the Constitution has no meaning.  We're saying that all of the people who swore an oath to uphold and protect it have basically sworn an oath to a worthless piece of paper.  Americans desperately need to put aside the guns and butter state propaganda and remember what it means to be an American.  

Here's a quote from Jesse Ventura that I think sums up the situation, "Liberty is security from tyranny."


----------



## seasoned (Nov 6, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> In the United States, the Constitution is in charge. This document recognizes our natural rights and everybody within it's jurisdiction is mandated to follow this document as the supreme law of the land.


I have no problem here. You are peaching to the choir. I was in the military serving honorably, plus as I type I am under oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States of America.




Makalakumu said:


> *(1)* If we recognize the TSA as a legitimate organization with legitimate powers, we're saying that the Constitution has no meaning. We're saying that all of the people who swore an oath to uphold and protect it have basically sworn an oath to a worthless piece of paper.
> *
> (2)* Americans desperately need to put aside the guns and butter state propaganda and remember what it means to be an American.



*(1) Agreed, *In most cases they abuse their status as airport screener, and the whole uniform and badge thing has gone to their head. 
*(2) ???
*


Makalakumu said:


> Here's a quote from Jesse Ventura that I think sums up the situation, *"Liberty is security from tyranny *



I'm on board with this. 

Jesse Ventura in my opinion, is a piece of work.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2011)

seasoned said:


> Jesse Ventura in my opinion, is a piece of work.



Are you using that as a wrestling term, "_work?_" :lfao:

Jesse's an _entertainer_. That's what makes the lawsuit frivolous-he's doing it for attention, for his damn TV show, and not with any serious intention-hell, he _already _moved to Mexico back in 2006.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 6, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Are you using that as a wrestling term, "_work?_" :lfao:.







elder999 said:


> _*Jesse's an entertainer*_. That's what makes the lawsuit frivolous-he's doing it for attention, for his damn TV show, and not with any serious intention-hell, he _already _moved to Mexico back in 2006.



I'm glad you mentioned that, because without knowing him, the picture of him posted a few posts back, would give pause to the unknowing.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2011)

Would you say the same thing about Ronald Reagan?  

No matter what you think of him, he's still an American and still has Constitutional Rights.  The lawsuit deserves to be heard, IMO.

Regarding guns and butter state propaganda, it's the whole idea that the government has to do everything for us, grow beyond it's Constitutional restrictions for the greater good, and protect the "national interest" everywhere in the world.  We're bankrupt and heading toward some dark times because of this thinking.  WWIII is probably going to be fought in Africa against the Chinese by proxy, for example.  That's my prediction and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2011)

Here's a real example of what I mean when I say that Americans need to rediscover what it means to be American.

The TSA is violating everyone's rights anytime they search someone without any reason at all.  The organization itself is unconstitutional.

Most Americans feel like *Seasoned*.  When it comes to the TSA.  Just take it and sacrifice your freedoms for the greater good of increased security.



seasoned said:


> Aside from being fondled by TSA, and no matter  how stupid they are, and no matter where they are on the pay scale, for  that small window of time, you are in their jurisdiction, and they are in charge.



Many Americans who have not spoken out against the TSA have spoken the following words.



> I, (_NAME_), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and  defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,  foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the  same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United  States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to  regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.



When pressed on the Unconstitutional treatment of citizens by the TSA, they fall back to the words of the oath, but not the spirit.



seasoned said:


> I have no problem here. You are preaching to the choir. I was in the military serving honorably, plus as I type I am under oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States of America.



When citizens can reconcile these positions and realize that the Constitution really is the law of the land and *act accordingly*, then we have overcome the propaganda.  Right now, many citizens have two contradictory positions in their minds at the same time.  We need to get this straight or we're going to lose our liberty.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2011)

It's not unconstitutional, John. You don't have to fly, and you don't have a *right* to fly-you're engaged in commerce, participating in a business transaction, and the search is part of that transaction. There are signs warning that your subject to search when you enter-you're engaged in a business contract that requires you be searched. It's no different than if you drive onto a government installation:







, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







I mean, I live in a *town* where you _are subject to warrantless search_. 

If you don't want to be searched, don't go to Los Alamos. Or the airport. 

Doesn't mean you have to like it, or feel powerless. We're flying to Vegas this week-I'm going to wear my kilt, properly, pass on the scan and elect for the "pat down/fondling,"and _scar someone for life_. :lfao:


----------



## granfire (Nov 6, 2011)

elder999 said:


> We're flying to Vegas this week-I'm going to wear my kilt, properly, pass on the scan and elect for the "pat down/fondling,"and _scar someone for life_. :lfao:



or make their life....


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2011)

granfire said:


> or make their life....



Maybe their day, anyway,. :wink:


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2011)

Can you choose an airline where passengers aren't subject to search by the TSA?

Jeff, by extension, your argument could be applied to anywhere people choose to go. So, when the TSA shows up at sporting events, concerts, shopping malls, schools, random places on the highway, etc, its perfectly fine?

That's coming, BTW.

Obviously, this isn't Constitutional and as much as I love the kilt idea, it doesn't strike the root of the problem...so to speak.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 6, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Can you choose an airline where passengers aren't subject to search by the TSA?



Yup.  Fly on a private charter from any of thousands of small airports. No TSA, no screening, no xray, no pat downs, nada.
Just you and your private plane.

http://www.blyon.com/how-to-fly-without-airport-security/

And you can join a growing number of 'plane coops'. How they work varies, but the short version is, monthly fee, fly without molestation.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Can you choose an airline where passengers aren't subject to search by the TSA?



If Rita-that's the wife-weren't going to NTS on business, and this trip were _strictly_ pleasure, like it is for me, we'd be flying up there ourselves, out of Los _ohmigod!_ Alamos airport.





I just love taking off from here, but I'll let Rita land....:lfao: (What you can't see, in addition to the landing strip being on a 600 foot high mesa with cliffs on both sides and high crosswinds, is the dense neighborhood just the width of a street away from the end of the strip)

Since she's on Lab travel, we're flying commercial, out of Albuquerque.......I like to drive to Vegas, too-did it in just a scoche under eight hours, about 12 years ago....



Makalakumu said:


> Jeff, by extension, your argument could be applied to anywhere people choose to go. So, when the TSA shows up at sporting events, concerts, shopping malls, schools, random places on the highway, etc, its perfectly fine?
> 
> That's coming, BTW.
> 
> Obviously, this isn't Constitutional and as much as I love the kilt idea, it doesn't strike the root of the problem...so to speak.



It's Constitutional until they're screening you to enter the park, library, state run free museum, or anywhere else that commerce isn't conducted and free passage is implied, otherwise, all bets are off: if a Broadway theater wanted to contract the TSA to conduct screenings, and they did so, there wouldn't be anything you could do about it except _choose not to see that damn show._ Ditto the trains, buses, subways, post-offices, malls, ferries, cruise ships, and a few other things I can think of, like toll roads. 

I know it's coming. I've known it for years. A bunch of you-people on this very board and others-insisted I was nuts for saying as much 10 years ago.

Sucks to be right, sometimes, but there it is, and if you think a cadre of government attorneys haven't already written a room full of briefs and white papers addressing how to prove the Constitutionality of all this, you should probably dress like Jesse used to, just for camouflage.

And so the rest of us know that you're nuts. :lfao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 6, 2011)

If airlines and airports were hiring companies to do TSA type of screening, then I would agree, that is perfectly Constitutional.  In this case, the Federal Government is mandating this kind of screening.  I've heard of some airports trying to kick the TSA out, but I don't know if it's been successful.  Regardless, this isn't Constitutional.  It's not the Federal Government's responsibility and it violates our rights when they do it.  

A private coop for air travel sounds interesting, but I wouldn't say that it's any great step toward liberty.  It's more like a loophole in the tightening control grid.  

Jeff, it's not a foregone conclusion that everything will be locked down into a police state, IMO.  People are waking up.  I was down at an Occupy event a couple of weeks ago and you wouldn't believe how many people are receptive to the idea of making a freer society.  You can't just throw your energy into the ballot box though.  You have to get out and do something about it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 7, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If airlines and airports were hiring companies to do TSA type of screening, then I would agree, that is perfectly Constitutional.  In this case, the Federal Government is mandating this kind of screening.  I've heard of some airports trying to kick the TSA out, but I don't know if it's been successful.  Regardless, this isn't Constitutional.  It's not the Federal Government's responsibility and it violates our rights when they do it.
> 
> A private coop for air travel sounds interesting, but I wouldn't say that it's any great step toward liberty.  It's more like a loophole in the tightening control grid.
> 
> Jeff, it's not a foregone conclusion that everything will be locked down into a police state, IMO.  People are waking up.  I was down at an Occupy event a couple of weeks ago and you wouldn't believe how many people are receptive to the idea of making a freer society.  You can't just throw your energy into the ballot box though.  You have to get out and do something about it.



Its not Unconstitutional your giving consent to be searched, or screened, or patted down.  Ive never had a problem traveling and ive never seen any issues.  

And it kinda makes me laugh at the suggestion of profiling instead of security check points.  I see the ACLU chomping at the bit for that one.  Thats the difference between the US and Israel.  They dont have lawyers specifically trained in making a "Victim class" and courts that make stupid rulings like we have here.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 7, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Its not Unconstitutional your giving consent to be searched, or screened, or patted down.



With this kind of thinking, your Constitutional Rights will disappear.  The government does not have the right to search you without probable cause.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2011)

> The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled  (.pdf) that travelers who walk through the airport metal detector  implicitly consent to a search of their persons and bags, and they can't  revoke that consent once the process has started.
> The ruling  moves domestic security policy closer to the rules that govern  international border crossings, according to travel expert Edward Hasbrouck.
> "Once  you have attempted to cross the border, you are committed to a search  of your person, up to and including sequestering you in a room for 72  hours while they examine your (feces) for bags of heroin. This case  seems to be applying more and more a similar argument."


http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/03/70450


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 7, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Its not Unconstitutional your giving consent to be searched, or screened, or patted down.  Ive never had a problem traveling and ive never seen any issues.
> 
> And it kinda makes me laugh at the suggestion of profiling instead of security check points.  I see the ACLU chomping at the bit for that one.  Thats the difference between the US and Israel.  They dont have lawyers specifically trained in making a "Victim class" and courts that make stupid rulings like we have here.



There's also a little matter of scale.  I used to count among my acquaintances the (now retired) chief of police at a major international airport here in the USA.  He was hugely impressed with the Israeli security folks and their security system.  But he also said it wouldn't be possible to implement beyond specific airlines.  He had more air traffic in a single day than something like an entire month or more for the entire Israeli air travel system.  And that was at a single (if huge) airport...  The Israeli security model is fantastic -- and some facets should definitely be used -- but we can't simply lift it wholesale.

There's something else to consider:  The people in Israel buy into the system.  They report things that people here ignore.  The idea of a bag being left unattended in a shopping center is incomprehensible to many people in the Middle East (and even in a large part of Europe).


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 7, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> With this kind of thinking, your Constitutional Rights will disappear.  The government does not have the right to search you without probable cause.


Actually, that's not what the Bill of Rights says.  The 4th Amendment prohibits UNREASONABLE search and seizure without a warrant.  It reads:
_The  right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and  effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be  violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,  supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place  to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
_

There are several exceptions, and many searches that have been found to be reasonable, and therefore permissible.  In the case of the searches at the airport and in travel, there is a legitimate government interest served, and which cannot be effectively served in a less intrusive manner.  They are also forms of consent searches:  you are not compelled by government action to fly.  

I'm not a blanket supporter of the TSA; actually I think they're well meaning but idiots by and large.  The TSA is a nightmare, always responding 2 crises back, and almost capriciously.  What the hell is served by making people take their shoes off?  Backscatter X-ray that doesn't store pictures except when it does... and who knows about the radiation dose.  Not to mention the millions of shipping containers that enter the country unsearched every day...  Not only that, but nearly all the emphasis has been on air travel.  Got news...  Anybody with some education in the field expects that the next huge terrorist act won't be a plane.  Maybe a train.  Maybe a bus.  But probably not a plane -- and if it is a plane, almost certainly not a hijacking.  Passengers aren't going to sit still for them anymore.  The shoe bomber, the underwear bomber?  Yeah... right.  Real scary attacks.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 7, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> With this kind of thinking, your Constitutional Rights will disappear.  The government does not have the right to search you without probable cause.


Its simple really if TSA bothers you and you dont want to be searched charter your own plane, drive to Canada or mexico and get on a plane or dont fly.  When you buy your plane ticket and step VOLUNTARILY into the security check point you have waived your right to search and have consented.  No different then on a traffic stop if you consent to have your vehicle searched by the police.Im not saying everthing TSA does is right but there has not been an effective alternative brought up yet.  Profiling is not effective for this country.  The US is too big and too diverse to try it.  We have too Many Lawyers


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 7, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/03/70450



Bad ruling.  If they can say this about the airports, they can say this about anywhere people choose to go.  There effectively is no 4th Amendment if this is allowed to stand.

The key word is IF.  The people don't have to accept it and can change it with proper political action.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 7, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Actually, that's not what the Bill of Rights says.  The 4th Amendment prohibits UNREASONABLE search and seizure without a warrant.  It reads:
> _The  right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and  effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be  violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,  supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place  to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> _
> 
> ...



Are the TSA searches reasonable?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 7, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Its simple really if TSA bothers you and you dont want to be searched charter your own plane, drive to Canada or mexico and get on a plane or dont fly.  When you buy your plane ticket and step VOLUNTARILY into the security check point you have waived your right to search and have consented.  No different then on a traffic stop if you consent to have your vehicle searched by the police.Im not saying everthing TSA does is right but there has not been an effective alternative brought up yet.  Profiling is not effective for this country.  The US is too big and too diverse to try it.  We have too Many Lawyers



Couldn't the same argument be used for going just about anywhere?  Does anyone else see that the door is pretty much open to search anyone, anywhere, at anytime if they decide to leave their property?


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 7, 2011)

Is searching a person boarding a commercial plane reasonable?  Yes.  As I stated, there is a legitimate governmental and public interest in keeping dangerous materials and contraband off of a plane.  Are the particular methods employed by the TSA reasonable?  More arguable, in specific cases.  Magnetometer?  No problem.  X-ray of baggage?  Again, no problem.  Pat down?  Depends on the criteria for selection of "enhanced screening."  The current criteria are probably arbitrary and capricious.  With a better method of selection -- yes.  Backscatter X-ray?  My problem there is the lack of transparency in the description of how they work.  The TSA can't even get it straight whether they store pictures or not, and given that, I don't trust their statements about how much of a radiation dose.

The "take your shoes off" and randomly defined limits on liquids?  We're back into the range of arbitrary and capricious.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Is searching a person boarding a commercial plane reasonable?  Yes.



Is it reasonable to search me and my whole family?  Also, does the way we are using the word "reasonable" really fit the intent of the Founding Fathers?  Didn't they mean that the government must have some reason to be suspicious before they search?  Isn't that why they have to get a warrent in the first place?

If I was entering an airport with my family and a police officer searched me like the TSA searches me, what would happen?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 10, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If I was entering an airport with my family and a police officer searched me like the TSA searches me, what would happen?


Once you pass the sign that says your subject to search by entering this secured location.  Nothing you have implied consent to the search.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Once you pass the sign that says your subject to search by entering this secured location.  Nothing you have implied consent to the search.



How can you consent to being searched if there are no airlines or airports where you cannot be searched?  

If the answer is that you consent simply by choosing to fly?  Couldn't that argument be used to search anyone anywhere at anytime?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 10, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> How can you consent to being searched if there are no airlines or airports where you cannot be searched?
> 
> If the answer is that you consent simply by choosing to fly? Couldn't that argument be used to search anyone anywhere at anytime?


I dont understand the first part of your post.  If your at the airport there are airlines.

I dont personally think the search itself is Unconstitutional for reasons I have stated.  
I could however see and agree with the argument that its unconstitutional for the Govt to require private companies like airlines to have to follow the security rules in the first place, and thats its a Govt Agency conducting the security.  I dont think the Fed should have the power to place regulations on private companies.  I think regulations should be left to the state.  They will get around this by using the commerce clause but I personally dont think they way the Commerce clause is used now is constitutional either but thats a totally different debate.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 10, 2011)

There are airlines you can fly without -ANY- TSA involvement.
They just cost more.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2011)

What airlines are exempt from TSA style security?



Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2011)

...or what airports?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 10, 2011)

See post #30.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> See post #30.



That's what I thought you were referring to...and that, my friend, is just a loophole.  It's also an expression of liberty, because freedom cannot be restrained.  People always find a way to get what they want.

That said, the State is still crapping all over our natural rights.  I have no criminal record.  My children are obviously no threat to anyone.  There is no reason for the government to force a virtual strip search on me and my family.

Also, no one has tackled the question as to whether the argument for searching basically opens the door for people to be searched anywhere they go simply by the fact that they decided to go there.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2011)

I'll take the loop holes, until they close them, then I'll find some more.
Or they'll shoot me. 

Agreed, but remember, if we don't do this crapping, if we don't molest the kids and harass you and go through all this theater, the "terrorists will win" and in 20 years we might have another plane hijacked, so surely inconveniencing and molesting millions is worth it.

As to searches, of course they can. Cop stops you just needs 'probable cause', and it's your word against the 4 responding cars as to what was 'in plain sight'. We've already established that a cop can issue unlawful orders, destroy evidence, steal property and even assault you should you point a deadly camera at him. Never mind those actions will in 5-6 years get you a nice $100k pay out. Remember, it's in your best interests to shut up, obey, conform. Because if you don't, the criminals will win. 

A bit of sarcasm there. But under it, truth. Those with power, intent on doing wrong, will always find a way to do it. The idea that walking through a set of doors suddenly removes my right to anything, is insane.  I signed no papers. I gave no verbal consent.  My refusal to subject myself to irradiation from machines with questionable safety does not make me a risk. My refusal to trust liars about such things doesn't make me a risk. The truth is, there is little risk. The procedures that were in place on 9-11-01 were adequate to stop the majority of risks.
What were the hijackers weapons? Box cutters.  I have about 1,000,000 of these from my days as a stock boy.
Not guns, knives or explosives. Box cutters.
Why did things get ugly? Because hijackers prior to 9/11 wanted to make political statements, get a free ride to Cuba. They didn't become suicide weapons.
All the extra stuff at the airports, all the precautions, all the delays, the nudiscans, the rub downs, the kids deprived of sippy cups and the old women deprived of their yogurt, and -thousands- of weapons are still getting through, due to poorly trained screeners using ineffective techniques on equipment they can't run right.  
To be blunt, 9/11 could happen again today, because -nothing- being done by the asshat TSA would stop it. Not a Bob damn thing.
But, since no more planes have hit any more buildings, it must be working, so lets expand into other things and screen bus riders -AFTER- they get off the bus.
Hey, lets pat them down in the parking lot before they get into their cars.
Makes as much sense.
But we'll allow it because we're fricken sheep.

America's lost it's bollocks.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 11, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Once you pass the sign that says your subject to search by entering this secured location.  Nothing you have implied consent to the search.



So if a town adds a line that you are subject to be searched on their 'Welcome to...' sign, then it is your contention that any LEO could strip down your car?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2011)

Legal at any border crossing, and up to 100 miles from the US border.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 11, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> So if a town adds a line that you are subject to be searched on their 'Welcome to...' sign, then it is your contention that any LEO could strip down your car?


not a town but def buildings in the town like court house, jail, govt offices, a bank, certain stores ect.  Just an entire town is too broad.  Do you get offended when patted down and put thru metal detector when going into the court house?  Should there be no security at airports?  Just allow everything and everyone on planes?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 11, 2011)

Yeah Im sick of all these corrupt cops running around America.  Beating people planting evidence.  Just last week I got locked up 6 times because they planted evidence on me.  Its an epidemic in america on the scale as great as this country has ever seen.  I say we do away with all cops and security.  The founding fathers would have never agreeded to cops.  Security haha it don't work anyway so why have it its pointless.  Why have laws people will still break them so what's the point right.Well I must run I see a kid with a camera over there I need to go punch her in the face and smash her camera.  Thank god for sheep makes my job so much fun


Bob Hubbard said:


> I'll take the loop holes, until they close them, then I'll find some more.Or they'll shoot me. Agreed, but remember, if we don't do this crapping, if we don't molest the kids and harass you and go through all this theater, the "terrorists will win" and in 20 years we might have another plane hijacked, so surely inconveniencing and molesting millions is worth it.As to searches, of course they can. Cop stops you just needs 'probable cause', and it's your word against the 4 responding cars as to what was 'in plain sight'. We've already established that a cop can issue unlawful orders, destroy evidence, steal property and even assault you should you point a deadly camera at him. Never mind those actions will in 5-6 years get you a nice $100k pay out. Remember, it's in your best interests to shut up, obey, conform. Because if you don't, the criminals will win. A bit of sarcasm there. But under it, truth. Those with power, intent on doing wrong, will always find a way to do it. The idea that walking through a set of doors suddenly removes my right to anything, is insane.  I signed no papers. I gave no verbal consent.  My refusal to subject myself to irradiation from machines with questionable safety does not make me a risk. My refusal to trust liars about such things doesn't make me a risk. The truth is, there is little risk. The procedures that were in place on 9-11-01 were adequate to stop the majority of risks.What were the hijackers weapons? Box cutters.  I have about 1,000,000 of these from my days as a stock boy.Not guns, knives or explosives. Box cutters.Why did things get ugly? Because hijackers prior to 9/11 wanted to make political statements, get a free ride to Cuba. They didn't become suicide weapons.All the extra stuff at the airports, all the precautions, all the delays, the nudiscans, the rub downs, the kids deprived of sippy cups and the old women deprived of their yogurt, and -thousands- of weapons are still getting through, due to poorly trained screeners using ineffective techniques on equipment they can't run right.  To be blunt, 9/11 could happen again today, because -nothing- being done by the asshat TSA would stop it. Not a Bob damn thing.But, since no more planes have hit any more buildings, it must be working, so lets expand into other things and screen bus riders -AFTER- they get off the bus.Hey, lets pat them down in the parking lot before they get into their cars.Makes as much sense.But we'll allow it because we're fricken sheep.America's lost it's bollocks.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2011)

Funny side bar.  I was in court waiting on my ex to show up a few years ago. She set off the metal detector. Cause - underwire bra with enough metal to build a grill in it. (ok, slight exaggeration there).  I don't know who was more embarrassed, her or the county cop who had to ask and wand her. Was the high point of that day.


Court house - Attorneys walk -around- the detectors with closed briefs all the time.  Cops too. 
Government offices - Saw several folks avoid any screening there too. 
Banks - never saw anyone patted down, forced to take their belt an shoes off and put through detectors before getting access at the bank. I wouldn't use any that did that either.
Stores - Any store that tries to search me better have a real cop there, and will be getting an earful.

Back to the court house, was I offended? No. Annoyed I couldn't have my phone on me. Amused when they couldn't answer how they detect non-metallic weapons, and non-traditional types.

Back to airports...
A few companies make non-metallic blades, durable enough for limited use, razor sharp.
Ceramic knives, combat plastics, glass all don't set off metal detectors, and properly placed will slip through xrayed bags.
The materials needed to make a small explosive (enough to pressurized a small plane) fit in a pack of gum, can be sealed to eliminate residue detection, and quickly mixed during take off. Also will slip through all current air port screening.

Lets be frank, they are missing 12" razors, loaded hand guns, and bowie knives by the hundreds. Thousands of people are getting on planes with the wrong tickets, expired tickets, even no tickets, despite a minimum of -4- screening layers.
But they're catching drug users (not security issue), old ladies (not security issue), and campaign managers carrying large amounts of cash (not security issue).

So it must be working right?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Yeah Im sick of all these corrupt cops running around America.  Beating people planting evidence.  Just last week I got locked up 6 times because they planted evidence on me.  Its an epidemic in america on the scale as great as this country has ever seen.  I say we do away with all cops and security.  The founding fathers would have never agreeded to cops.  Security haha it don't work anyway so why have it its pointless.  Why have laws people will still break them so what's the point right.Well I must run I see a kid with a camera over there I need to go punch her in the face and smash her camera.  Thank god for sheep makes my job so much fun



You missed my point.
But, I am sick of the couple hundred corrupt cops out there, the couple thousand 'decent but too lazy to do their jobs right' who make up crap as they go because they missed the last 5 department memos on how to behave, and the 10 thousand or so who -aren't up to date- on laws because they weren't properly trained/informed/updated so make honest mistakes, but end up causing PR issues and tax payers money in settlements that could have been easily avoided.

So, point by point:
"Cop stops you" I have to stop if a cop stops me right?
"it's your word against the 4 responding cars as to what was 'in plain sight'."  Am I wrong? Has there ever been a case where 4 cops say they saw something, an individual say they didn't and a court found the cops were wrong, based only on the word of all involved?
_If_ a cop says "stop taking pictures" with the reason "it's illegal" when in fact it is legal, is that a "lawful order"?
_If_ a cop takes my camera and deletes the photos on it, is that not "destroying evidence"?
_If_ a cop takes my camera when he has no legal right to do so, is that not "stealing"?
_If_ a cop smacks my camera down, or out of my hands, is that not "assault"?

Where was I wrong?

Take it all as an attack on cops, or take it as an attack on corruption and stupidity.
Don't matter to me, I'll still get 10 votes for President in 2012.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2011)

Now, lets go back to -airport- security.

4 main screening points.
The ticket counter
The ID check
The xray machine
The gate check.

Ticket counter. 
Currently requires you use the same credit card you used to buy to check in with.
Doesn't do anything really as you can pass off the card to someone else before continuing on.
Counter clerk takes your ID for a looksie.  They are matching faces, not verifying it's real ID.
Test runs with fake ID have breached this 100% of the time.

The ID check.
TSA goon takes your ticket and ID, gives them a bored glance, matches the -names-, scribbles something on your ticket and passes you along.
Fake ID and in fact fake tickets, near 100% success rate breaching this stage.
As effective as the guy at the door of the membership club with the hole punch.

The Xray machines.
Harder to fool. Relies on bored and complacent or poorly trained screeners to breach.
Test runs by random 3rd party have an over 70% failure rate (meaning security is breached).
TSA tests run by known testers at scheduled times are 100% successful. I wonder why.
Real world failure rate estimated to be upwards of 40%

The gate check.
Simply matches the face on the ID and the name on the ID with the name on the ticket.
Failure rate here is under 5%, and usually results in someone getting on the wrong plane.


Now, the -law enforcement- folks here can easily spot a few holes I'm sure. 
Like, when was the ID ran against government databases to check validity?

It's theater. It's not effective. It's a waste of money, time and manpower to screen as we are.

There are a number of less invasive, less annoying, less inefficient ways to secure air travel, while not making old men take off their shoes and little kids go without their juice.  That's my point, that's Jesse's, that's a lot of peoples point.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 11, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Funny side bar.  I was in court waiting on my ex to show up a few years ago. She set off the metal detector. Cause - underwire bra with enough metal to build a grill in it. (ok, slight exaggeration there).  I don't know who was more embarrassed, her or the county cop who had to ask and wand her. Was the high point of that day.
> *My wife was a deputy for a while and did court security for a few months and the stuff people bring in was always funny.  Little tip people when your coming to court for a drug case remember and you empty your pockets before entering the metal detector leave your bag of crack in the car.
> 
> *Court house - Attorneys walk -around- the detectors with closed briefs all the time.  Cops too.
> ...



I cant figure out how to multi-quote so I responded in your quote  Hopefully it is readable


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2011)

Got it.  (For multiquote, start with the first post and click the "+ icon at the bottom right of each post, then on the last post hit the "reply with quote button.



My solutions:
For cops: Do a better job weeding out the small number of asshats in the ranks, quicker. Better communications in-house, and more training to keep everyone upto date on the law.  You'd have less problems, better pr and save money for taxpayers. Over simplified solution, but it's somewhat off topic here.

For airports:
- Tie into government databases to -verify- id, not just match faces and names.
- Hire -law enforcement- to handle this step at least. Covers privacy concerns in not allowing civilian non-cop screeners access to government databases.
- Use a somewhat Israeli solution combining what works there with what works here, with a filtering system so that the 95% of travelers who are non-risk are quickly through non-invasive screening.  Focus on the 5% that are more of a risk with more intense methods.
- Better train the people screening. As-is, they are not well trained, their own internal policies are confusing and no 2 screeners have the same answer to the same question.

Also, if sippy cups, juice boxes, water bottles and snow globes are really threats, why aren't they treated as such after surrender, but instead are left for Walt the Janitor to clean up at the end of the night?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 11, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> You missed my point.
> But, I am sick of the couple hundred corrupt cops out there, *So am I makes my job harder
> * the couple thousand 'decent but too lazy to do their jobs right' who make up crap as they go because they missed the last 5 department memos on how to behave, *Im not sure what you mean by "make something up".  Ive never made stuff up and If I ever saw someone doing that I would take care of that problem.*
> and the 10 thousand or so who -aren't up to date- on laws because they weren't properly trained/informed/updated so make honest mistakes, but end up causing PR issues and tax payers money in settlements that could have been easily avoided. *Not in every case but there are alot of issues that are a gray area.  You will have different rulings from different courts saying different things on he same issue.  For example The 7th circuit may rule you cant search a persons cell phone incident to arrest, and the 4th circut may say your can.  So you are going to use the law thats more favorable to you.  You get to court and the judge decides he likes the 7th circuit better then the 4th so your case is thrown out.  Until the Supreme Court rules there are alot of laws that are interpreted many different ways on the same issue.  Also we get our legal opinions from our states atty office and they have the final say.  So we depend on them for what to do and not to do.  Up until LAST WEEK we were still told filming police in this state violated our wire tap laws.  It wasnt until LAST WEEK the changed the opinion and now say as long as we are in public we are fair game.  The only reason they even changed it was in part a request by me to look into the issue and that was because of this site that I asked for an updated decision on the matter.*
> ...



..


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 11, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> My solutions:
> For cops: Do a better job weeding out the small number of asshats in the ranks, quicker. Better communications in-house, and more training to keep everyone upto date on the law.  You'd have less problems, better pr and save money for taxpayers. Over simplified solution, but it's somewhat off topic here.


*I agree with that and I believe we have gotten alot better in the last 15 to 20 years then we were about policing our own.  
*


> For airports:
> - Tie into government databases to -verify- id, not just match faces and names.
> - Hire -law enforcement- to handle this step at least. Covers privacy concerns in not allowing civilian non-cop screeners access to government databases.
> - Use a somewhat Israeli solution combining what works there with what works here, with a filtering system so that the 95% of travelers who are non-risk are quickly through non-invasive screening.  Focus on the 5% that are more of a risk with more intense methods.
> - Better train the people screening. As-is, they are not well trained, their own internal policies are confusing and no 2 screeners have the same answer to the same question.


*I agree with alot of that and im not saying our system is perfect as it is.  It can greatly be improved.   I think it sould be totally farmed out to private security compaines not fed govt employees.  Make a private company responsible and if things slip thru fine them they would do a better, more efficent and cheaper job then the Govt ever could.  But the question was are the searches itself unconstitutional and I say its not but im also not a Constitutional scholar.
My only problem with the israeli system and Im by no means an expert in the Israeli Airport security and Im way over simplifying it, is it depends heavily on profiles and non-verbal clues.  Profiling in this county is a dirty word and is fought tooth and nail.  Anytime I arrest a minorty one of the first questions Im asked by a def. atty is "isnt it true you started watching my client because he fit the profile of a dealer and thats the only reason you were watching him"  We are now required to fill out racial profiling data sheet on all our traffic stops and send that data to the justice department just to prove were not "profiling"
Another problem with that is there are so many organizations out there that would like to hurt us including our own home grown American citizens who could easily not fit the profile were looking for.
*


> Also, if sippy cups, juice boxes, water bottles and snow globes are really threats, why aren't they treated as such after surrender, but instead are left for Walt the Janitor to clean up at the end of the night?


 *I personally believe they dont let you bring that stuff into the airport so you have to buy a new bottle of water or snow globe ect once inside the airport.  I always found it amusing you cant carry on an unopened bottle of say wine but can go thru security walk to the duty free shop and buy the same bottle there and carry that one on the plane*.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 11, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> So if a town adds a line that you are subject to be searched on their 'Welcome to...' sign, then it is your contention that any LEO could strip down your car?



No.  Different situation.  I consider the consent aspect to be a secondary aspect; the search prior to flying at the airport is reasonable as I said above.  Random searches of people simply walking about a town is not reasonable, and any legitimate public interest or goal involved could be served in less intrusive ways.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 11, 2011)

@ballen

While Israeli security somewhat relies on profiling, it most heavily relies on non-verbal cues. I'm a white, obviously Orthodox Jew and i get questioned often enough. It does not slow down the process as a lot of the watching/interviewing is done while you are already witing in a line. It is SOP for security officers to pull people out of the check-in line to talk to them. The questions are sometimes pointed, often trivial. In a good number of cases, the person questioned is not the person of interest. You are pulled out of line while other officers observe the reaction of the real target. Eye contact is always maintained. And plain clothes security is also observing in the secure area of the airport. 

It is scalable to other airports. It would require more, better trained pesonnel. That would increase the cost of air travel. When everybody demands return cross country travel for $99.99, you get the security you deserve.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 11, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Court house - Attorneys walk -around- the detectors with closed briefs all the time.  Cops too.
> Government offices - Saw several folks avoid any screening there too.
> Banks - never saw anyone patted down, forced to take their belt an shoes off and put through detectors before getting access at the bank. I wouldn't use any that did that either.
> Stores - Any store that tries to search me better have a real cop there, and will be getting an earful.


Banks and stores generally deal with different security concerns, and handle them in a different way.  Hence, in many banks now, you talk to the teller through an inch and a half of plastic...

As to folks who bypass security -- every organization has people that are trusted.  You see it at the airport, with airport employees.  Cops, court employees, and members of the bar at that court are generally exempted.  They're known and have been vetted.  


> Lets be frank, they are missing 12" razors, loaded hand guns, and bowie knives by the hundreds. Thousands of people are getting on planes with the wrong tickets, expired tickets, even no tickets, despite a minimum of -4- screening layers.
> But they're catching drug users (not security issue), old ladies (not security issue), and campaign managers carrying large amounts of cash (not security issue).
> 
> So it must be working right?



The current screening model has lots of problems.  One of the biggest is who they're getting to do a lot of it...  and how little training they're getting, combined with how inconsistent their training and policies are.  Add rules and policies that are responding to two threats back -- ineffectively -- and it's a mess.  They've got the same people fulfilling duties that are almost contradictory.  

But the scale of the system is a major hurdle, as well.  The larger airports deal with passenger counts in the tens of millions.  That's not counting the horde that comes to pick up Aunt Susie, the employees, vehicle traffic like taxis, shuttle buses, and limos/hired cars.  Or cargo and general aviation traffic at the airport.  Your larger national or international airports are really small to mid-size cities...


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 11, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Banks and stores generally deal with different security concerns, and handle them in a different way. Hence, in many banks now, you talk to the teller through an inch and a half of plastic...


 I walked into a bank the other day and I could not physically see any employees.  You walk into the lobby and then get into a little phone booth looking thing and you interact with the teller on a TV screen and you put your stuff in the little tube just like the drive thru.  It was kinda creepy I didnt like it at all.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 11, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Now, lets go back to -airport- security.
> 
> 4 main screening points.
> The ticket counter
> ...


The ticket counter is barely a security check.  It's a ticket counter; the goal is to ensure that folks buy tickets and drop off baggage.  They're not really verifying the validity of an ID, just that the names and faces match.


> The ID check.
> TSA goon takes your ticket and ID, gives them a bored glance, matches the -names-, scribbles something on your ticket and passes you along.
> Fake ID and in fact fake tickets, near 100% success rate breaching this stage.
> As effective as the guy at the door of the membership club with the hole punch.


Staffed by people who are dealing with huge numbers of travelers and trying to get people through to the next stage with the proper materials more than an actual security check.  They'll turn you around if you don't have a ticket... but that's it.  And often, in my experience, staffed by idiots.  Sometimes who don't even speak English.  (I tried to accompany my wife and son who was at the time straddling the toddler/infant line as far as the magnetometer once.  I showed my LEO credentials, and made it clear that I wasn't trying to actually enter the secure cordon, just help her manage things to get through it.  He didn't recognize what the creds were... despite the fact that they say POLICE.)

Again -- it's a minimal security checkpoint, primarily intended to facilitate processing to the primary checkpoint.


> The Xray machines.
> Harder to fool. Relies on bored and complacent or poorly trained screeners to breach.
> Test runs by random 3rd party have an over 70% failure rate (meaning security is breached).
> TSA tests run by known testers at scheduled times are 100% successful. I wonder why.
> Real world failure rate estimated to be upwards of 40%


This is the primary checkpoint.  They're supposed to be doing a couple things here: checking identity docs, checking boarding docs to say that you're supposed to be going through, and screening for dangerous contraband.  While getting people through on time.  Yeah -- lot going on, limited time, and lots of pressure.  This has led to relying on a lot of technology (magnetometers, X-ray, body scanners...) and some nutty policies like taking your shoes off.  

Let's look at a couple of the issues.  Verifying identity documents.  There is no national ID card.  Each state has it's own -- and, typically, has a couple of valid versions at any given time.  DMV photos are often a joke; I know people who are using 10 to 15 year old photos on their ID because they've renewed by mail the last few times.  Raise your hand if you still look just like your picture from 10 years ago...  Yeah, you're probably still recognizable -- unless you've shaved or added a beard, for example.  Honestly, I recognize the "right" ID from about 6 or 8 states reliably.  I've got cheat books, and I rely on being able to run the license.  So... now we've got a TSA agent who's trying to match a photo that's about 1 inch square against you as you go through the magnetometer and read the name on the boarding pass.  And monitor the signals from the magnetometer, too.  Busy guy, huh?

Meanwhile, you've got someone checking your carry-on luggage for contraband.  Here they're really trusting that the tech will catch things.  I'll tell you right now -- I can take about 8 things off the top of my head through that they wouldn't bat an eye at, and that would be a world of unpleasantness on the plane were I to choose to use them.  Some are things that are harmless till combined.  Others are just things that aren't obviously dangerous but can be modified to be very dangerous with little effort.  On top of that, they're also looking for smuggling illegal stuff like drugs.  Another pretty busy person.



> The gate check.
> Simply matches the face on the ID and the name on the ID with the name on the ticket.
> Failure rate here is under 5%, and usually results in someone getting on the wrong plane.


Again, the primary purpose here is not really security -- it's getting the person onto the flight.  And making sure that they don't get the wrong person on the flight -- namely someone who didn't pay.  This "checkpoint" is really unchanged from the old days of completely open terminals, and is still primarily aimed at preventing stowaways and overboarding.



> Now, the -law enforcement- folks here can easily spot a few holes I'm sure.
> Like, when was the ID ran against government databases to check validity?
> 
> It's theater. It's not effective. It's a waste of money, time and manpower to screen as we are.
> ...



I agree.  There are a lot of things that can be improved in the system.  But how well can they be grafted onto the existing physical structures?  How many airports have had to do some pretty extensive renovations over the last 10 years to adapt to the new security procedures?  I remember going to pick my cousin up at the airport when we were kids, and waiting for him at the gate, where he got off the plane.  Can't do that anymore... not without arranging a gate pass.  

Look at the fuss over the Real ID Act...  which basically pushed to get some consistency in ID formats, and make sure that the government isn't issuing ID cards to people who don't have a legal right to be in the country.  

How much time are you willing to spend getting into the airport?  Dulles International Airport recommends allowing a minimum of 2 hours for domestic flights and 3 hours for international -- and at peak times, even longer.  Let's say we just split some of those tasks at the main checkpoint out.  You have one agent whose job is to look at your ID, ask a question or two to confirm it, and match it against a boarding pass -- which gets validated.  Another agent's job is only handling the physical screening of the passenger.  A third handles the carry-on luggage screening.  I'd add some actual LEOs to deal with discoveries and agents (LEO or not is debatable) to do follow-up screening for questionable travelers.  First catch:  we now need more TSA agents, and we need to actually train them.  Second catch: time.  Figure on this adding 10 minutes at a SWAG to screening.  Third catch: traveler volume, and impacts of volume on time.

There aren't easy solutions.  The current process needs help -- but solutions have to be workable, too.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 11, 2011)

Breaking apart a quote:

vBulletin uses square brackets to identify commands; the command turns it on, and a backslash turns it off.  I'm going to deliberately misspell "quote" as "qoute" so that the tags show up to show you here.

[qoute] turns on the quote.  [/qoute] turns it off.  

So, using part of your post:


> [QouTE=Bob Hubbard;1441710]Funny side bar.  I was in court waiting on my  ex to show up a few years ago. She set off the metal detector. Cause -  underwire bra with enough metal to build a grill in it. (ok, slight  exaggeration there).  I don't know who was more embarrassed, her or the  county cop who had to ask and wand her. Was the high point of that day.[/qoute]
> *My wife was a deputy for a while and did court security for a  few months and the stuff people bring in was always funny.  Little tip  people when your coming to court for a drug case remember and you empty  your pockets before entering the metal detector leave your bag of crack  in the car.
> 
> *[qoute]Court house - Attorneys walk -around- the detectors with closed briefs all the time.  Cops too. [/qoute]
> ...


will produce (if you spell quote properly):


> Bob Hubbard said:
> 
> 
> > Funny side bar.  I was in court waiting on my  ex to show up a few years ago. She set off the metal detector. Cause -  underwire bra with enough metal to build a grill in it. (ok, slight  exaggeration there).  I don't know who was more embarrassed, her or the  county cop who had to ask and wand her. Was the high point of that day.
> ...



To make it easier to identify here -- I actually enclosed the whole mess I was showing in a quote balloon, too.  Hope it's not confusing.  (For that, I just highlighted the stuff, and clicked on the word balloon looking button)


----------



## Carol (Nov 11, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> .*the only reason they even changed it was in part a request by me to  look into the issue and that was because of this site that I asked for  an updated decision on the matter.
> *.



:asian:




> Not a lawful order but sometimes the situation gets out of hand due  to the photographer wanting to push the officers buttons just so it can  get on tape and post it on youtube.  I would suggest you tell the  officer you want a supervisor and talk to them.  Most of the time if the  cop is doing something worth recording they are already on edge dealing  with the issue they are not just standing around doing nothing.  Its no  excuse but in the heat of the moment you have things going 5 million  miles an hour some people dont think clearly not right but we are only  humans we have emotions.



We're all human. 

The concerns Bob Hubbard and I have aren't restricted to filming live police encounters as they happen.  They include taking pictures other public places and having an officer stop us.  To tie this in to the subject of the TSA -- they put out a poster literally saying "Don't let our planes get  in to the wrong hands.  If you see something, call your local law enforcement" and the subject of the photo was a guy with a zoom lens photographing a regional jet from behind a chain link fence. 

If someone says I shoot photos of waterfalls, I sound like a nature lover.  If someone says I shoot photos of power plants, that can sound really bad (especially framed by the TSA's example)....even though a waterfall and a hydro plant can be the same thing.   I don't want to capture anything on youtube.  I don't want to capture people suffering.  I don't want to give anyone a hard time, and I certainly don't want to get arrested -- I work with over 100 LE agencies, that kind of press I don't need. :lol:

I think it helps to have conversations like we are having here, and sharing perspectives.  But it really frustrates me that on a grander scale, the "conversation" takes place by those screaming the loudest...many of whom do not take a favourable view to LE or LEOs. I wish that wasn't so.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 15, 2011)

So, Vegas was fun: Terry Fator, Cirque du Soleil&#8217;s "Love," the Phantom of the Opera for the umpteenth time, steaks at Gallagher&#8217;s for the umpteenth time, Carlos Santana at the Hard Rock, where we stayed-and it&#8217;s really cool, almost like a museum. And I got to see Marquez get robbed of a draw by Paquiao. Even got a little training and a little less gambling in. 
Sadly, I didn&#8217;t wear my kilt-it was partly business for Rita, whose presentation went well, and I didn&#8217;t need to disrupt it. Instead, I decided to conduct an stealthy experiment-one I was quite confident as to what the results would be.

It probably doesn&#8217;t come as a surprise to some of you that over the last 30 years or so, I&#8217;ve developed a catalogue of techniques using the pen as a weapon: methods of deployment, wielding, etc. Interestingly, it took about that long for the industry to truly catch up with me, and come up with the "tactical pen." These things range in price from $25 to about $300, if you can believe that-though most of them are just a heavy hunk of aluminum with a no slip grip, and sharp points. This
 






 
is the "Uzi" tactical pen. Retails for about $25. It&#8217;s quite servicable, both as a pen, and as an object I&#8217;ve driven through 3/8" plywood, a rack of pork ribs, and into a pork shoulder several times. At some point I&#8217;ll post more about using these pens, as well as several fountain pens, as weapons, and some of the tests I&#8217;ve conducted, but first my experiment, documented in a photo essay I&#8217;ll call _The Deadly Pen and Friends Go To Vegas."_

That&#8217;s right-_the TSA sucks. _:lfao:

I first took the pen aboard in my laptop case, though I brought it home in my jacket:





 
And, along with my restricted size carry on toiletries:





 
I brought this:





 
which is about the most powerful pepper spray that a civilian can buy.

 
Ironically, the pepper spray is illegal to possess in Clark County-though I could legally carry my pistol there-so it didn&#8217;t get much of a tour, and stayed in the Hard Rock. In fact, it stayed there-I don&#8217;t really care much for pepper spray, and just bought this stuff to make a point. The pen though, 






 
made the point pretty well for me. :lfao:
In all seriousness, don&#8217;t do this-not only did I have every confidence in succeeding, but extraordinary means to get myself out of trouble if I didn&#8217;t-and, really, the pepper spray was the only real problem, as I could easily have plead forgetfulness, and given up the pen if they&#8217;d pointed it out, but they didn&#8217;t even bat an eye. I won&#8217;t even get into the variety of pen-type objects that conceal knives, firearms, and those that disperse chemicals.

As far as those "volume restricted liquids" go, the 3.4 oz liquid limit in oil, like brake fluid, and another common and easily available substance, milled to look like talcum powder-on which there is no volume restriction-when combined, result in a rather energetic reaction: the immediate release of toxic gas, followed shortly by an explosion.

If someone wants to bring the planes down, and is willing to sacrifice themselves to do so, and isn't quite as stupid as the shoe and underwear bombers, well, _they will._

I have no objection to searches for flights. I have no objection to reasonable restrictions for safety.In the case of the TSA, though, neither are truly effective. They are psuedo-security psychodrama, intended to let you all think the government is _*doing *something_ and that it&#8217;s _ for our own good._ *It doesn&#8217;t accomplish anything*, except to make the public accustomed to it. Consequently, John is quite right-when another incident occurs, and I have no doubt that eventually one will. It doesn't really take much of a genius to figure out how to blow up a plane _that you&#8217;re riding in_, for example-and the other public .soft targets are just waiting for someone with the will and the means.Then the drama will be ratcheted up, and such procedures will be implemented in a variety of public places-_the government doing something for our own good_. And there&#8217;s really nothing to be done about it-it&#8217;s a foregone conclusion.

Oh, and as I&#8217;ve demonstrated-*the TSA sucks.* :lfao:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 15, 2011)

If it wasn't for the TSA, that kid who always was seen eating his boogers and jars of paste wouldn't have a job.


----------



## Carol (Nov 16, 2011)

elder999 said:


> And I got to see Marquez get robbed of a draw by Paquiao.



Oh man.....great fight, but an ugggggly decision.  I'm a big Pacquiao fan, watching him fight reminds me of how much I love boxing.  Seeing the judging reminds me of how much I hate it.  I actually thought it would be Marquez by decision.

I've had no issues flying with the Executive Defender either.   Haven't  had to blink the baby blues with an innocent "Yes, I'm an executive...." line yet


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 16, 2011)

elder999 said:


> So, Vegas was fun: Terry Fator, Cirque du Soleil&#8217;s "Love," the Phantom of the Opera for the umpteenth time, steaks at Gallagher&#8217;s for the umpteenth time, Carlos Santana at the Hard Rock, where we stayed-and it&#8217;s really cool, almost like a museum. And I got to see Marquez get robbed of a draw by Paquiao. Even got a little training and a little less gambling in.
> Sadly, I didn&#8217;t wear my kilt-it was partly business for Rita, whose presentation went well, and I didn&#8217;t need to disrupt it. Instead, I decided to conduct an stealthy experiment-one I was quite confident as to what the results would be.
> 
> It probably doesn&#8217;t come as a surprise to some of you that over the last 30 years or so, I&#8217;ve developed a catalogue of techniques using the pen as a weapon: methods of deployment, wielding, etc. Interestingly, it took about that long for the industry to truly catch up with me, and come up with the "tactical pen." These things range in price from $25 to about $300, if you can believe that-though most of them are just a heavy hunk of aluminum with a no slip grip, and sharp points. This
> ...



Thats fine and all but does not really prove anything.  I know for a fact Ive missed things in searches.   Ive missed things searching cars, people, houses.  I Missed a 357 revolver once on a pat down only to find it a few min later after he was arrested and I searched him talk about pucker factor when I found it.  I watched a training film of a guy in an interview room inside a police station pulls a 1911 45Cal hand gun from his waist and blows his head off.  That was after he had already shot a cop and was searched several times. People are people and we miss things it happens.   
When I search people I only deal with one person at a time at most a few times a day not thousands of people a day.  I saw a thing on news last night that said since airlines started charging for checked baggage TSA has had to scan 60 million more carry on bags then then last year.  So if anything we need more TSA workers.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2011)

The -last- thing we need is more -TSA-.

What we need are more effective, efficient and functional screening procedures, combined with a more professional and better trained screener force.

But I trust mall cops more than I do the TSA.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 16, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The -last- thing we need is more -TSA-.
> 
> What we need are more effective, efficient and functional screening procedures, combined with a more professional and better trained screener force.
> 
> But I trust mall cops more than I do the TSA.


Ive never met an unprofessional TSA officer.  Ive always been treated with respect.  I also am not into trying to buck the system just to get a gotcha momment for you tube on intentionally carry things on i know im not supposed to just to prove a point.  They have a job to do and thats it. They dont make the rules they are given the rules by big wigs at Homeland Security.  So to constantly call them names like they made up the rules is not really fair.  I enforce many rules and laws I dont agree with but I get paid to do a job so I do it.  Ive arrested many people I felt sorry for and wish I didnt have to arrest them but I also dont want to loose my job for not following the rules.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 16, 2011)

I've never personally met an unprofessional one either, though my direct experience wasn't with TSA but private screeners at SFO.
There are hundreds of reports (at a minimum) of TSA behaving badly however, with well over 100 arrested for crimes.  You can say it's a small %, but how many cops are arrested each year?  
I've got inside info that says the systems pretty bad, with the rules being poorly explained and poorly implemented. 
No, I stick to my position. 
I trust cops. I don't trust the TSA.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 16, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I've never personally met an unprofessional one either, though my direct experience wasn't with TSA but private screeners at SFO.
> There are hundreds of reports (at a minimum) of TSA behaving badly however, with well over 100 arrested for crimes. You can say it's a small %, but how many cops are arrested each year?
> I've got inside info that says the systems pretty bad, with the rules being poorly explained and poorly implemented.
> No, I stick to my position.
> I trust cops. I don't trust the TSA.


100's of examples?  There are over 2 million people flying a DAY thats damn good odds right there.
Again your upset about the rules but these guys dont make the rules. 

You can have any position you want but to imply they are all too stupid to even tie a shoe is not fair.  You dislike the policy ok but they have nothing to do with it.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 16, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Thats fine and all but does not really prove anything.  I know for a fact Ive missed things in searches.   Ive missed things searching cars, people, houses.



I missed a package of sushi down a guy's pants a few weeks ago...  

No, that's not a typo or a joke.  He had a package of grocery store sushi down the front of his pants.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 16, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> I missed a package of sushi down a guy's pants a few weeks ago...
> 
> No, that's not a typo or a joke. He had a package of grocery store sushi down the front of his pants.



Nice


----------



## Carol (Nov 17, 2011)

Yeeesh.....

Note to self.....inspect the packaging of grocery store sushi very carefully before purchase....


----------



## elder999 (Nov 17, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> You can have any position you want but to imply they are all too stupid to even tie a shoe is not fair. You dislike the policy ok but they have nothing to do with it.



I've yet to see a TSA employee with untied shoes. Of course, I've also never seen them _tying_ their own shoes-for all I know, their supervisor dresses them......:lfao:

In any case, you've missed an essential point-they're not law enforcement, and they're poorly trained-as well as set up for failure. I'm more than willing to bet that I could fly five or ten times more-_however many times I like_-with the same stuff and not raise so much as an eyebrow. In Albuquerque, I removed my shoe, belt, watch, and all other metal, was scanned *and* patted down, as was everyone else. The _scanner_ was smart enough to point out the extra pockets on the cargo pants I was wearing, and I was asked about them, they were searched and found to be empty. My luggage was X-rayed, and the "tech" at the X-ray didn't bat an eye. Why would he? A pen, and a spay container of the permissable size among other spray containers in my toiletries. As for my behavior, I was the same as most of the other sheople flying that early morning-somewhat bleary eyed, and going through the required motions while trying to maintain whatever dignity I have. _The very scenario preempts any kind of profiling on the basis of behavior by eliciting behavior from its participants._ In other words, a terrorist doesn't have to worry about looking nervous-he just has to _mooooove_ along with the herd.

Of course, having been subject to these kinds of searches for most of my career, and having worked directly with the TSA and DHS for most of their existence, I can say (and have pointed out repeatedly) that the guards that scan luggage are not adequately trained. On the other hand, if they were to receive such training and act on it, people might miss their flights, and we can't have that.

lastly, the ridiculous restrictions on volumes of liquids in carry-ons do nothing to make anyone safe from the very hazard they are supposedly meant to prevent.


----------



## Carol (Nov 17, 2011)

Plus they outright lie to us.  I took a brief foray in to the bomb detection...er...Electronic Threat Detection field after Enron and MCI/Worldcom managed to destroy the tech/telecom sector.   I've even been to the US Army's Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey where our system gets tested with live explosives....the gob'mint didn't let us play with real ones unless the militay was close at hand   (They did, however, let us play with dummy explosives that are close enough to the real thing to simulate a threat)

To have them come right out and say that the machines don't save data when a standard datasheet you can grab from the internet or by e-mailing the manufacturer clearly states it is a Windows XP system.  Some even list their hard drive capacities.   And yup, the ethernet jack is so it can be networked like an ordinary Windows system, which also means it can be hacked like an ordinary windows system if precautions aren't followed.  

Then there is consistency.   The European Union is starting to resist, believing the backscatter machines are too invasive.  Do we hassle people within our borders when all a committed Al-Qaeda operative has to do is make sure the flight is boarded from Paris Charles De Gaulle and not Boston Logan?

Why is this happening?  Why do we have to put up with continuing crap....such as uniformed TSA Agents leaving notes that say "Get Your Freak On Girl" when they see an...intimate toy in a lady passenger's luggage?  

As a decidedly curvy girl, I learned from a very young age to respect my own body, to enforce boundaries, and to shun the indignant cries from those whining because my own personal standards were preventing them from gittin' what dey wanna git.  Why must I risk dropping those standards simply to board an airplane?  Why must I be faced between dropping those standards and continuing with my career?   Very few jobs in my field are devoid of travel.

What do we do, write our congress critters?   I have.  The complaints fall on deaf ears.  No one flies commercial...if you look online you can find comments from a US Rep from Missouri who has a knee replacement.  She chose to sell her private jet and after the first time flying commercial, she was shocked -- I say, shocked -- at all the hassles that the ordinary flying public have to go through.

There are decent TSA agents out there.  The ones at my home airport have  made efforts to actually get to know their passengers...an important  part of security.  The Missouri rep also mentioned the agents she came  across were very professional.   I can't say all that I have encountered  are, but many have been.  The ones I encountered when having to do the less-invasive "Macarena" style search were exceedingly professional. 

Even the one that was a man.  After a series of weather delays, no one could guarantee that a female screener would arrive in time for me to get to my gate.

After I joked to the horror of other MT members that backscatter images might be captured and sold/exploited online after someone notable crossed through them - why did this happen in real life?

Why did the Dallas State House propose banning intimate searches? 

Why was the first backscatter deployment -- which occurred when I was still in the detection field -- occur in ORLANDO?  An airport that has more CHILDREN than any other?

I will agree that not all TSA agents are motards, but I can't be the only one that thinks this emperor may not be wearing any clothes.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I've yet to see a TSA employee with untied shoes. Of course, I've also never seen them _tying_ their own shoes-for all I know, their supervisor dresses them......:lfao:
> 
> In any case, you've missed an essential point-they're not law enforcement, and they're poorly trained-as well as set up for failure. I'm more than willing to bet that I could fly five or ten times more-_however many times I like_-with the same stuff and not raise so much as an eyebrow. In Albuquerque, I removed my shoe, belt, watch, and all other metal, was scanned *and* patted down, as was everyone else. The _scanner_ was smart enough to point out the extra pockets on the cargo pants I was wearing, and I was asked about them, they were searched and found to be empty. My luggage was X-rayed, and the "tech" at the X-ray didn't bat an eye. Why would he? A pen, and a spay container of the permissable size among other spray containers in my toiletries. As for my behavior, I was the same as most of the other sheople flying that early morning-somewhat bleary eyed, and going through the required motions while trying to maintain whatever dignity I have. _The very scenario preempts any kind of profiling on the basis of behavior by eliciting behavior from its participants._ In other words, a terrorist doesn't have to worry about looking nervous-he just has to _mooooove_ along with the herd.
> 
> ...



Ive never argued they are properly trained. I think they def need more training but I can also say that about many police officers I know too. My argument is you cant blame the agent for the policy he didnt write it. You cant blame the agent thats just trying to do his job and feed his kids because the TSA didnt give him better training. You throw up a few hundred incidents of bad agents yet look at the size of the agency and look how many contacts they have per day. How many TSA agents are in the US? I dont know I couldnt find the answer but I would guess there are more then any Law Enforcment agency in the Country. When you hire that many people in such a short amount of time bad apples are going to slip thru the cracks. Same would happen if a police department had to hire 1000's of people at one time. Is the system perfect no far from it. Can it be made better? Yes with out a doubt. Should Agents be better trained? Yes. Should then entire system be scrapped because a few people dont like it? Nope not until a better and safer system is made up that will work in this country with the size and diverse population that we have here. Should we call all TSA agents every nasty name in the book for doing a job? Well some on here think its ok however Im not one of them.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 17, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Ive never argued they are properly trained. I think they def need more training but I can also say that about many police officers I know too. *My argument is you cant blame the agent for the policy he didnt write it. You cant blame the agent thats just trying to do his job and feed his kids because the TSA didnt give him better training*. You throw up a few hundred incidents of bad agents yet look at the size of the agency and look how many contacts they have per day. How many TSA agents are in the US? I dont know I couldnt find the answer but I would guess there are more then any Law Enforcment agency in the Country. When you hire that many people in such a short amount of time bad apples are going to slip thru the cracks. Same would happen if a police department had to hire 1000's of people at one time. Is the system perfect no far from it. Can it be made better? Yes with out a doubt. Should Agents be better trained? Yes. Should then entire system be scrapped because a few people dont like it? Nope not until a better and safer system is made up that will work in this country with the size and diverse population that we have here. *Should we call all TSA agents every nasty name in the book for doing a job? Well some on here think its ok however Im not one of them*.



Hmmm. I don't think I said "TSA agents are booger eatin' morons." In fact, what I said was:



			
				el Brujo de la Cueva said:
			
		

> *The TSA* sucks...:lfao:



And I think I'll stand by that.


----------



## granfire (Nov 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Hmmm. I don't think I said "TSA agents are booger eatin' morons." In fact, what I said was:
> 
> 
> 
> And I think I'll stand by that.



I think Bob said that the TSA gave jobs to the booger and paste eating kids in school....


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 17, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Hmmm. I don't think I said "TSA agents are booger eatin' morons." In fact, what I said was:
> 
> 
> 
> And I think I'll stand by that.


Like I said find something better and talk to your congressman.  There are sympathetic memebrs of congress that also dislike the TSA give them something better to fight for.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2011)

I stand by my statement. I also stand by my ranking them as lower than pedophiles, and just as wanted here. (neither are welcome).

http://www.tsacrimes.com/

BTW, This year a total of ten TSA screeners (so far) have been arrested for child sex  crimes. There have been 59 TSA screeners arrested so far this year, a rate of  one very six days. Of these, ten are charged with sex crimes involving  children and four with helping to smuggle drugs through security.

Can anyone tell me, how many -Real Cops- have been arrested for the same crimes?
Just to put this in a fair perspective.

contributed "master lists" of TSA abuses, crimes, etc.:


*Fisher1949's list (updated 11/14/2011)*
*Lisa Simeone's list (updated 11/9/2011)*
http://www.travelunderground.org/index.php?threads/master-lists-of-tsa-abuses-crimes.317/


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 17, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Like I said find something better and talk to your congressman.  There are sympathetic memebrs of congress that also dislike the TSA give them something better to fight for.


My congressman is rather useless. I've written, emailed, and phoned. He likes big government nanny-state stuff though.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 17, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Like I said find something better and talk to your congressman. There are sympathetic memebrs of congress that also dislike the TSA give them something better to fight for.



Well, for many things, we *did* find something better. We went in with some friends on a Piper Cherokee Six....writing's on the wall on this one too, I'm afraid.....


----------



## Carol (Nov 18, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Like I said find something better and talk to your congressman.  There are sympathetic memebrs of congress that also dislike the TSA give them something better to fight for.



I'll give mine credit, all 3 of mine wrote back.  The best e-mail was from my senior senator who has  co-sponsored a bill criminalizing the release of backscatter imagery.  Pity its dying in committee.  

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s4037/show

Here's something better 

http://www.flymanchester.com/



			
				Facebook said:
			
		

> ]Patty McIntosh
> 
> 
> 
> ...





 

The pat downs are the "macarena" style search and not the more invasive search.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 18, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I stand by my statement. I also stand by my ranking them as lower than pedophiles, and just as wanted here. (neither are welcome).
> 
> http://www.tsacrimes.com/
> 
> ...


Way more then 59 officers have been arrested this year.  I can think of just with in 30 miles of me 2 of the largest deparmtnes in the state one locked up 13 at one time for taking bribes and towing vehicles that didnt need to be towed and using this one company they would pay the officers 50 to 100 bucks per car they towed.  and a 2nd department that locked up like 9 or 10 for double dipping submiting OT slips while they were actually working.  I personally worked with an an officer that was locked up during rollcall for sleeping with a 13 yr old.  I was in VA last month for training and all over the news was a deputy arrested for looking at child porn on his department computer.  Baltimore city arrested a cop a few months ago who got drunk and at a bar and shot and killed a Marine War vet in an ally.  A small local department about 45 min from me just arrested an officer for rape.  He arrested the husband for domestic assault took him to jail got off his shift went to the womans house and raped her. These are just local examples near me I can recall off the top of my head.  Nationally there are storys of cops doing every crime under the sun from theft to serial killers.  
So Im glad you have this respect for law enforcement but there are bad cops too as you already pointed out:




Bob Hubbard said:


> We've already established that a cop can issue unlawful orders, destroy evidence, steal property and even assault you should you point a deadly camera at him. Never mind those actions will in 5-6 years get you a nice $100k pay out. Remember, it's in your best interests to shut up, obey, conform. Because if you don't, the criminals will



But let me ask you this would you be ok with current security progams if all TSA agents were sent to FLETC (Federal Law Enfrcement Training Center) completed the program all other federal law enforcement agencies do and then were sent back to the airports?  Would that change your opinon of the process at all?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> But let me ask you this would you be ok with current security progams if all TSA agents were sent to FLETC (Federal Law Enfrcement Training Center) completed the program all other federal law enforcement agencies do and then were sent back to the airports?  Would that change your opinon of the process at all?



It depends.  Would they then be bound by the US Constitution like real cops, or would they continue to have more powers and less liability than real cops?


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 18, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> It depends.  Would they then be bound by the US Constitution like real cops, or would they continue to have more powers and less liability than real cops?


The security as it is now is constitutional.  If it wasnt there would be 1000's of court cases heading to supreme court to fight it like for example the health care bill.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2011)

The constitutionality is debatable as it's not, to my knowledge, been declared such by someone with the power.
Police do unconstitutional things every day, as the growing number of court cases against them for harassing photographers shows.
Despite losing those cases, those same departments continue to repeat those acts.
The TSA has more power than a cop, does not need to meet probable cause to search, to confiscate, to detain.
They just have to wanna.

Ventura's case was 1. There are others, and they are quickly dismissed. Not because 'its legal' but for other reasons. 'wrong court', 'wrong defendant', 'wrong time of day'.
It's a shame that Texas bent their neck to the DHS's threats. A whole state putting the TSA at legal risk for their crap would have been nice.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 18, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The constitutionality is debatable as it's not, to my knowledge, been declared such by someone with the power.
> Police do unconstitutional things every day, as the growing number of court cases against them for harassing photographers shows.
> Despite losing those cases, those same departments continue to repeat those acts.
> The TSA has more power than a cop, does not need to meet probable cause to search, to confiscate, to detain.
> ...


I guess we just disagree on it then.  It passes Constitutional Muster because you are waiving your rights to seach and seizure when you willingly get into the line to be searched.  
If people feel that strongly about the issue they need to fight it in court and get a ruling.  I did a quick search and couldnt find any serious legal challenges Im sure the ACLU would love to jump on this if there was a case.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2011)

I'm saying the constitutionality is debatable. Not saying it isn't constitutional, just that it's not been established. So, we're kinda on the same page there, or closer than it would seem. I'm less concerned with the legality (as I think it most likely is, to a point) as the implementation, which has so far been proven to be ineffective, and run by poorly trained people implemented inconsistently. An area I think we're in agreement on, to a point. 

If the issue is that they can't do their job at an efficient speed due to manpower, then we need more people on the line.
If the issue is that they can't do their job correctly due to training, then they need better training.
If the issue is that they can't do their job honestly, then we need better pre-screening prior to hiring.
If the issue is that they can't do their job because they are sex offenders, then we need better pre-screening prior to hiring.

It comes down to hiring good honest people, training them properly, and giving them an efficient system to work within.

What we have is thieves and perverts, abusing trust, misusing authority, and letting things through that are illegal and could place flights at risk.
That, is to me unconscionable, and needs to stop.

I trust the cop pulling me over isn't going to steal my mp3 player. I need the same trust in the guys checking for bombs at the airport.
I ain't got it. So I don't fly. I'll drive, even if it means I get to participate in a 'revenue enhancement stop' in NE Texas.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 18, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm saying the constitutionality is debatable. Not saying it isn't constitutional, just that it's not been established. .



For *years* now, if you enter certain nightclubs in New York City or Chicago, you get searched. Ditto some sporting events. Don't want to be searched, don't go.

Flying is the same. The "government mandated" part might not be Constitutional, but the searches themselves are.....


----------



## Carol (Nov 18, 2011)

Bob I'll see you and raise you 

From my untrained eyes, the whole agency needs reworking. THE most dangerous job in New England (as well as the rest of the country) is that of a fisherman.  Highest mortality rate.   Go to work and you stand the best chance of not coming back home.  Get in to trouble, you could easily be hours away from help and may be able to do little more than hope that help finds you before Poseidon does.   Yet the pay of a fisherman is 30something per year.  If the fishing industry can find people that risk their lives for that kind of pay, the TSA could conceptually find people to do work for that pay (which is what Boston pays for an incoming officer) in a job with far fewer hazards, federal bennies and up to 35 percent retention bonus.

Consistency breeds credibility.  The TSA is not always consistent (to put it charitably) in their actions.  This hurts their credibility.  I think the agency needs to be reworked with Deming cycles and quality management that can produce a department that runs better, with better people....without resorting to robbing the taxpayer in hopes of to attract more accomplished professionals with better pay.  I don't know if they are doing tat now, but I have my doubts as to their continuous improvement metrics.  TSA tends to bleed on a regular basis.  Turnover was higher before the genetalia searches...I suspect it is even higher now, most agents don't like it any more than we do -- the 35% retention bonus speaks volumes.

Deming said in the 1960s that when a team focuses on quality, their quality goes up and their costs go down.  When a team focuses on costs, their costs go up and their quality goes down.  Agent turnover is expensive.....and you and I are all paying for it.  Plus it leads to a drop in quality.  The agents out there that are good at their job are probably good at doing a few things.  If we lose the good ones and keep the bad apples, that hurts all of us.

   Plan, do, study, act.   Plan a process.  Do the process.  Study the results.  Act on how it can be improved.  The cycle never stops. A more consistent and effective department will result in better quality (more effective screening, greater approval by the flying pubic), at lower costs.  Less turnover.  Maybe they won't have to lean on 35% bonuses as a crutch to keep the good ones around.  Maybe their retention will become high enough so that they raise the bar for entry and attract people with a better education.  Right now one can be a HS dropout with a year of aviation screening and still qualify on paper.  More demand will drive the educational and work experience higher, and result in better quality people.

Easier said than done, to be sure.  Also easier said than done is creating a methodology that screens one-third of the entire world's air traffic.  10 Billion passengers per year is a helluva lot to manage.  But we can do better than we are, I'm confident of it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 18, 2011)

Carol said:


> Bob I'll see you and raise you
> 
> From my untrained eyes, the whole agency needs reworking. THE most dangerous job in New England (as well as the rest of the country) is that of a fisherman. Highest mortality rate. Go to work and you stand the best chance of not coming back home. Get in to trouble, you could easily be hours away from help and may be able to do little more than hope that help finds you before Poseidon does. Yet the pay of a fisherman is 30something per year. If the fishing industry can find people that risk their lives for that kind of pay, the TSA could conceptually find people to do work for that pay (which is what Boston pays for an incoming officer) in a job with far fewer hazards, federal bennies and up to 35 percent retention bonus.


I know lots of crabbers and fisherman here in the Chesapeake Bay and Ocean area and they make WAY more then 30 something a year. My father in law is a crabber he makes very good money. Last year he made over 40 grand in 3 months and took the rest of the year off. I watch the lobsterman and swords shows they are always bragging on making a few grand per week out there fishing. 



> Consistency breeds credibility. The TSA is not always consistent (to put it charitably) in their actions. This hurts their credibility. I think the agency needs to be reworked with Deming cycles and quality management that can produce a department that runs better, with better people....without resorting to robbing the taxpayer in hopes of to attract more accomplished professionals with better pay. I don't know if they are doing tat now, but I have my doubts as to their continuous improvement metrics. TSA tends to bleed on a regular basis. Turnover was higher before the genetalia searches...I suspect it is even higher now, most agents don't like it any more than we do -- the 35% retention bonus speaks volumes. Deming said in the 1960s that when a team focuses on quality, their quality goes up and their costs go down. When a team focuses on costs, their costs go up and their quality goes down. Agent turnover is expensive.....and you and I are all paying for it. Plus it leads to a drop in quality. The agents out there that are good at their job are probably good at doing a few things. If we lose the good ones and keep the bad apples, that hurts all of us.


That applies to almost all Govt Departments not just TSA. 





> Plan, do, study, act. Plan a process. Do the process. Study the results. Act on how it can be improved. The cycle never stops. A more consistent and effective department will result in better quality (more effective screening, greater approval by the flying pubic), at lower costs. Less turnover. Maybe they won't have to lean on 35% bonuses as a crutch to keep the good ones around. Maybe their retention will become high enough so that they raise the bar for entry and attract people with a better education. Right now one can be a HS dropout with a year of aviation screening and still qualify on paper. More demand will drive the educational and work experience higher, and result in better quality people.
> 
> Easier said than done, to be sure. Also easier said than done is creating a methodology that screens one-third of the entire world's air traffic. 10 Billion passengers per year is a helluva lot to manage. But we can do better than we are, I'm confident of it.


I agree with that


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 18, 2011)

http://homelandsecuritytheater.com/
Cartoon written by a -former- TSA screener.
Many of the cartoons include detailed behind the scenes intel on just what has been going on with the TSA.


----------

