The TSA: Now harassing Americans outside the airports

[Teamless]

I'm sure he'll figure out a way.

I certainly hope so!
But I am worried that even if we disband the TSA, we will just have 50,000 employees doing nothing and still on the payroll, as Government never likes to give up people or size.
An example of which, I heard yesterday on the morning talk shows in Houston,
Detroit has a blacksmith on the payroll.
They cannot get rid of him.
He makes (I think they said) $58,000/year
His job is to make horseshoes for the city of Detroit's horses.
the only problem is, they haven't had city owned horses since about 1913.
http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/docs ... rvices.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and search for blacksmith

[Heartland Patriot]

Yeah, I read that about the blacksmith in Detroit. He does do some machinist type work for them, from what I gather. The job description for the position should have been rewritten a LONG time ago but I'd bet that would have caused the union heartburn, so it was left alone. Typical bureaucratic sludge.

[LainD]

Well, there was the "don't touch my junk guy" --> arrested
The woman who groped back --> arrested
And many others who were arrested or otherwise had their lives made miserable after resisting.

Even our own Texas Legislature backed down when they tried to make some of the TSA's tactics illegal in our great state.

The lesson has been loud and clear: the TSA has unquestionable power. Scary.

See, that's my point. The people that have resisted or spoke out about being groped in the security line have ended up in cuffs or detained. They aren't LEO's but it seems they do have to power to cuff you if you don't comply. It seems like but saying no to a search and not complying, the TSA assumes you are guilty and hiding something and therefore need to be arrested.

Despite what the Federal Courts have rules, I just don't see how the "Naked Scanners", pat downs, and rifling through my bags(property) are constitutional. It seems to me the govt has made something unconstitutional constitutional and the spineless politicians are more worried about their paychecks and next term than they are about defending the rights of their constituents. It is bad enough that they are in the airports instead of letting private enterprises handle the security (private security has more to loose if they screw up. There is no govt protection for them) But this whole slow move outside the airport is what has me angry. It is yet another govt tactic to slowly turn up the heat on the pan that holds the frog sitting in water. The massive expansion of govt in the last decade is staggering. But now they are physically encroaching on the American people. I am not ok with that.

I have a personal litmus test that I like to use in my daily life:
1) Don't encroach on other person's or their property.
2) Do all you have agreed to do.

If something doesn't pass those two, alarms start going off.

[jimlongley]

Well, there was the "don't touch my junk guy" --> arrested
The woman who groped back --> arrested
And many others who were arrested or otherwise had their lives made miserable after resisting.

Even our own Texas Legislature backed down when they tried to make some of the TSA's tactics illegal in our great state.

The lesson has been loud and clear: the TSA has unquestionable power. Scary.

See, that's my point. The people that have resisted or spoke out about being groped in the security line have ended up in cuffs or detained. They aren't LEO's but it seems they do have to power to cuff you if you don't comply. It seems like but saying no to a search and not complying, the TSA assumes you are guilty and hiding something and therefore need to be arrested.

Despite what the Federal Courts have rules, I just don't see how the "Naked Scanners", pat downs, and rifling through my bags(property) are constitutional. It seems to me the govt has made something unconstitutional constitutional and the spineless politicians are more worried about their paychecks and next term than they are about defending the rights of their constituents. It is bad enough that they are in the airports instead of letting private enterprises handle the security (private security has more to loose if they screw up. There is no govt protection for them) But this whole slow move outside the airport is what has me angry. It is yet another govt tactic to slowly turn up the heat on the pan that holds the frog sitting in water. The massive expansion of govt in the last decade is staggering. But now they are physically encroaching on the American people. I am not ok with that.

I have a personal litmus test that I like to use in my daily life:
1) Don't encroach on other person's or their property.
2) Do all you have agreed to do.

If something doesn't pass those two, alarms start going off.

TSA has no power to cuff people, they have to call a LEO and convince them that there is cause to do so. When private security was "handling it" they were less consistent from one screener to the next, much less from one airport to the next, and there was no accountability. Far from having more to lose, they felt safe in their actions knowing that there were multiple layers of private bureaucracy for any complaints to get through, and then all the government layers too. The constitutionality issue has long been settled, you are contracting with a private company, the airline, to carry you and your property from one point to another and they can set any rules they like. The federal government rules the airways and say that you can't take certain items on planes, and you, by buying a ticket, have accepted the terms of travel.

Like the frog, you needed to start complaining about the encroachment decades (not just this last one) ago, it's too late now.

[LainD]

TSA has no power to cuff people, they have to call a LEO and convince them that there is cause to do so. When private security was "handling it" they were less consistent from one screener to the next, much less from one airport to the next, and there was no accountability. Far from having more to lose, they felt safe in their actions knowing that there were multiple layers of private bureaucracy for any complaints to get through, and then all the government layers too. The constitutionality issue has long been settled, you are contracting with a private company, the airline, to carry you and your property from one point to another and they can set any rules they like. The federal government rules the airways and say that you can't take certain items on planes, and you, by buying a ticket, have accepted the terms of travel.

Like the frog, you needed to start complaining about the encroachment decades (not just this last one) ago, it's too late now.

I disagree with you...but that's ok. And how do you know I haven't been "complaining about the encroachment decades ago"? :-)

[The Annoyed Man]

Like the frog, you needed to start complaining about the encroachment decades (not just this last one) ago, it's too late now.

So we should stop complaining about creeping socialism, encroachments on the 2nd Amendment, and other examples of rogue government because it has been going on for decades.....and just shut up and take it?

I don't think so. Not for a New York minute.

[smoothoperator]

It may be too late for complaining to accomplish anything but direct action can be pretty effective.

[jimlongley]

TSA has no power to cuff people, they have to call a LEO and convince them that there is cause to do so. When private security was "handling it" they were less consistent from one screener to the next, much less from one airport to the next, and there was no accountability. Far from having more to lose, they felt safe in their actions knowing that there were multiple layers of private bureaucracy for any complaints to get through, and then all the government layers too. The constitutionality issue has long been settled, you are contracting with a private company, the airline, to carry you and your property from one point to another and they can set any rules they like. The federal government rules the airways and say that you can't take certain items on planes, and you, by buying a ticket, have accepted the terms of travel.

Like the frog, you needed to start complaining about the encroachment decades (not just this last one) ago, it's too late now.

I disagree with you...but that's ok. And how do you know I haven't been "complaining about the encroachment decades ago"? :-)

You were the one that defined the time frame, disagree away, that's the facts.

[Richardc]

The TSA is a useless waste of tax money, i have yet to meet one that is qualified to do the job.

[jimlongley]

The TSA is a useless waste of tax money, i have yet to meet one that is qualified to do the job.

I can assure that you just never met them, but the other problem is that those of us who were well qualified left due to the bureaucratic nightmare of dealing with a public that felt as though we either didn't know how to do our jobs, which they could have done no better, and a hierarchy that agreed with them, or at least appeared to. No, I don't think a little baby or an ancient grandma look like much of a threat, but as a screener I am not allowed to "profile" and there is always the possibility that someone has mined their baby or grandmother. Why I liked working baggage more than passenger, the bags didn't argue with you over whether a regulation that almost every other passenger that day has obeyed shouldn't apply to them, you just run them trough the x-ray and try to figure out why they are taking a dozen turkey legs back to Lubbock from the State Fair.

[LabRat]

I can assure that you just never met them, but the other problem is that those of us who were well qualified left due to the bureaucratic nightmare of dealing with a public that felt as though we either didn't know how to do our jobs, which they could have done no better, and a hierarchy that agreed with them, or at least appeared to.

With all of the inconsistent procedures foisted upon travelers, is it any wonder that we think the TSA screeners are incompetent? People know what they see and understand; and draw conclusions based on what's presented. What logic is it that supports the supposition that if I can't do something, I must not complain about someone else who can't do the job either? I can't fly an airplane, but I'm pretty sure its OK for me to complain about the pilot who crashes it on takeoff (if I live).

No, I don't think a little baby or an ancient grandma look like much of a threat, but as a screener I am not allowed to "profile" and there is always the possibility that someone has mined their baby or grandmother.

Screeners profile all the time because it's a function of being human; everyone does it consciously or sub-consciously; so it's somewhat silly for us to believe that TSA screeners "don't profile"; if the TSA screeners are human they profile.

If you take the "mined their baby or grandmother" logic to its ultimate conclusion, then you must search everyone; period.

Why I liked working baggage more than passenger, the bags didn't argue with you over whether a regulation that almost every other passenger that day has obeyed shouldn't apply to them, you just run them trough the x-ray and try to figure out why they are taking a dozen turkey legs back to Lubbock from the State Fair.

What folks argue about is getting treated one way in Newark and a different way in Dallas and then even in a different way in Atlanta. It's the inconsistencies that frustrate folks the most. Take the lady bringing the cupcake thru a couple of screenings with everything fine and then told to "dump the cupcake or we'll have you arrested" at a different airport?

The fact of inconsistency is the appearance of incompetence.

[jimlongley]

I can assure that you just never met them, but the other problem is that those of us who were well qualified left due to the bureaucratic nightmare of dealing with a public that felt as though we either didn't know how to do our jobs, which they could have done no better, and a hierarchy that agreed with them, or at least appeared to.

With all of the inconsistent procedures foisted upon travelers, is it any wonder that we think the TSA screeners are incompetent? People know what they see and understand; and draw conclusions based on what's presented. What logic is it that supports the supposition that if I can't do something, I must not complain about someone else who can't do the job either? I can't fly an airplane, but I'm pretty sure its OK for me to complain about the pilot who crashes it on takeoff (if I live).

No, I don't think a little baby or an ancient grandma look like much of a threat, but as a screener I am not allowed to "profile" and there is always the possibility that someone has mined their baby or grandmother.

Screeners profile all the time because it's a function of being human; everyone does it consciously or sub-consciously; so it's somewhat silly for us to believe that TSA screeners "don't profile"; if the TSA screeners are human they profile.

If you take the "mined their baby or grandmother" logic to its ultimate conclusion, then you must search everyone; period.

Why I liked working baggage more than passenger, the bags didn't argue with you over whether a regulation that almost every other passenger that day has obeyed shouldn't apply to them, you just run them trough the x-ray and try to figure out why they are taking a dozen turkey legs back to Lubbock from the State Fair.

What folks argue about is getting treated one way in Newark and a different way in Dallas and then even in a different way in Atlanta. It's the inconsistencies that frustrate folks the most. Take the lady bringing the cupcake thru a couple of screenings with everything fine and then told to "dump the cupcake or we'll have you arrested" at a different airport?

The fact of inconsistency is the appearance of incompetence.

But the inconsistencies you speak of have nothing to do with the individual screeners, they are the fault of the administration. I am all for treating everyone alike, but in airport A the local administrator decides that the language "A well regulated militia, being necessary . . ." applies only to an organized militia, while in airport B, they pay more attention to "shall not be infringed." and when the rank and file try to point out the problems, you get threatened with disciplinary action.

A few years back I flew to San Antonio to take a federal test. I could have driven, I suppose, but I was a TSA employee and would be departing and arriving through my own airport, I thought it would be fun. The trip down was no big deal, except for getting teased about the gun in my checked back and the fact that they plastic wrapped my bag, making it tough to get into in S.A. The trip back was a whole 'nother thing.

I checked my bag and declared my gun, and was run through a separate baggage screening line, which I pointed out was against SOP. Then the x-ray, which was set on the wrong setting, which I pointed out to the screener running it and the supervisor of the screening station, and it "alerted" on my gun. I was asked to open the bag and open the gun case, whereupon the supervisor of the screening station actually picked up my gun, an egregious violation of TSA procedures, and swabbed it for explosive detection, also a violation and kind of stupid since it had been fired recently and not been cleaned. The explosive detector did not alarm on the swab, probably because it was also on the wrong setting, which I also pointed out to the supervisor, and then she put my gun back in the box and put it back in my bag without locking it.

When I got back home I wrote a long treatise about inconsistent screening and reported the screener and "stupidvisor" by name and I know she was disciplined, because she was transferred to my airport and I wound up working for her from time to time.

I could actually go on and on with such tales, but the simple fact is that inconsistencies are the fault of the administration, not the individual screeners.

I heard someone comment once, that the screeners were LEO wannabes and "the dregs" and rent a cops, and nothing could be farther from the truth. I am a retired telecomm technical support engineer, and worked with a variety of people that I knew from the industry, engineers and technicians with a great deal of knowledge and skill and the intelligence to properly interpret the instructions we received. The reason there were so many? Right before TSA was formed the telecomm bubble burst. Here in Dallas Alcatel laid off 75% of their workforce in a single day, which made lots of us available on short notice for less than suitable pay, and other telecomm companies across the US did the same.

And then the administrators came in. Retired LEOs who wanted back in somehow or another, retired military, most on medical retirement, and a variety of others. The hierarchy was the same all the way to the top, and became imbedded and entrenched, and "fighting city hall" was frowned upon, even when they knew we were right.

I carried a concealed handgun to a training class, and one of the instructors actually came over and gave me a kind of pat down, and I was sent off to talk to an administrator (and I wasn't the only one) and told I had violated federal law. I pointed out to the administrator that the class was not being held on federal property (in a hotel), that proper notice under Texas law had not been given, and that I had been searched illegally. I went back to class with the understanding that I would not carry to class anymore and nothing more would be said. the next day a different instructor, who could not figure out how top operate Power Point, called me "dangerous Jim" in front of the class, so I filed a complaint, which was quashed by the administrators.

So all of you who keep blaming the screeners need to put yourselves in their shoes and place the blame right where it lies, up the chain of command.

[posse]

Management is a big part of the problem in any dysfunctional organization, but some people are stupid and/or jerks no matter who they work for.

[Deltaboy]

I have not flown since 911 and I don't plan on it unless I have too.

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm sure that administration of the department is largely responsible for this. Search my posts for the terms "Janet Napolitano is a toad." There will be a LOT of them. She's an incompetent administrator who gives hiring preferences to her female feminist buddies over better qualified higher seniority males. She was an incompetent governor of Arizona. I could go on, but "she's a toad" says it all.

But that doesn't explain the guy I saw at Phoenix Sky Harbor. I was coming up on next up to go through the metal detector and was rushing to take my shoes and belt off. An elderly gentleman came up to me and very nicely asked if he could butt in front of me because he was about to miss his flight. I said yes. The TSA guy started shouting at this nice old man in an abusive voice to hurry up. The old man was flustered and said "I'm trying to get my shoes off, hang on a second." The TSA guy gets right up in his grill, Marine Corps DI style, and starts berating the old guy, threatening him: "IF YOU DON'T HURRY UP I'M GOING TO RUN YOU THROUGH THAT THING OVER THERE!!!!!" (indicating the brand new full-body scanner which airports were just starting to get into use). And then he made good on the threat, scaring the crap out of this old gentleman as he shoved him toward the machine. I was literally stunned. I've never even seen a real cop talk to a criminal who had it coming that way, let alone the way this absolute thug of a wannabee brownshirt fed talked to this sweet old guy. His coworkers glanced over at the ruckus, and then went right back to their own tasks without a single one of them intervening with this psychotic. Ever since then, I don't take TSA professionalism for granted anymore.

From now on, every one of them, no matter how well intentioned, will have to prove their professionalism to me, because you never know when one of them will be a psychotic who can make you late to your destination, or even get you put on the no-fly list.