TSA Thugs

[ATM]

That quiz has some tricky ones... I'm going to need more time...

 

[jeremy]

Just for shits and giggles when is the last time you went for a flight or left the counrty?

A year ago when I few home from Iraq! And I will fly to Afghanistan in a couple more months.

 

[dburkhead]

at least your funny to read.
You seem to know just about everything about anything. Should you have gone into teaching? Politics?
Just wondering you speak like the ones you preach about.

There's this wonderful invention called the "library." There's this subject called "history." I recommend both to you.

Just for shits and giggles when is the last time you went for a flight or left the counrty?

That has essentially no bearing on anything under discussion here, but the last flight was the first part of February to my mother's funeral. I travel overseas, usually to the Far East (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong mostly) a couple of times a year. 20K miles is about 2 years travel for me, so I'll give you the mileage.

However, consider, there are at least 217 "major" airports in the US according to one source (USA Airports and Airlines and go through each state to get the total). That list doesn't include small airports like the Redmond, OR airport which I flew to in February or the, or even larger airports such as the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport at which my wife arrived for the first time from Japan. A USA today article talks about schedule changes at 300 airports so that bumps the minimum number up to that. That's at least 4800 "airport hours" of security being open (Some are open 24 hours, some are not, figure an "average" of 16 hours per airport) and then factor in that many airports have more than one security counter. A person spends maybe an hour (sometimes less, sometimes more) in the security area per flight. That means a person has about a 0.02% chance (or close to 1 in 5000) of being present for any one incident of abuse of power by TSA individuals. Put another way, there would have to be more than 3300 incidents per day for a person to have a 50% chance of observing one on a particular flight. There could be 530 incidents per day and you would only have about a 10% chance of seeing one on a particular pass through security--which translates into six flights to have an even chance of seeing one.

And that is why "I haven't seen it" doesn't mean squat.

 

[NEWMAN]

A year ago when I few home from Iraq! And I will fly to Afghanistan in a couple more months.

HEHE

Take it easy.

 

[NEWMAN]

just asking. perhaps we could discuse this in Kowloon oneday. Give me a reason to go back. LOL

P.S. I'm not arguing with you just like reading what you are writting. I've never been in a LIBERRARY before. ahaha.

Again thanks for the other side of things. I don't think anyone of us is right besides your qoute of "dont step on our liberty" paraphrased of course.

 

[dburkhead]

just asking. perhaps we could discuse this in Kowloon oneday. Give me a reason to go back. LOL

P.S. I'm not arguing with you just like reading what you are writting. I've never been in a LIBERRARY before. ahaha.

Again thanks for the other side of things. I don't think anyone of us is right besides your qoute of "dont step on our liberty" paraphrased of course.

Your pardon then. Your post looked to me as if you were being sarcastic. If that was not your intention then my apologies.

 

[wtfd661]

Couple that where left off the "test"

1. The Weatherman 1969 - 1975 responsible for bombing numerous Police/Military targets, were comprised of what type of individuals?
Answer - U.S. college students
2. The Symbionese Liberation Army 1973 - 1975 responsible for bank robberies, murders, kidnappings, etc. were comprised of what type of individuals?
Answer - U.S. citizens
3. Unabomber attacks 1978 - 1995 were carried out by ?
Answer - Theodore Kaczynski a highly educated white male U.S. citizen
4. Oklahoma City Bombings were carried out by?
Answer - Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols, both white American males
5. Centennial Olympic Park Bombing killed 1 and injured 111 people was carried out by ?
Answer - Eric Robert Rudolph a white American male.

Sorry I didn't have enough time to get other cute choices for answers, and I'm really not trying to be a a**hole, but for those who ONLY think terrorist are middle eastern arabs are just fooling themselves.

Terrorist can and are all types and nationalities, don't fool yourself into believing you can "spot" the stereotypical bad guy.

I could have listed dozens of more examples of domestic terrorist incidents but I think you get the point.

 

[dburkhead]

Couple that where left off the "test"

1. The Weatherman 1969 - 1975 responsible for bombing numerous Police/Military targets, were comprised of what type of individuals?
Answer - U.S. college students
2. The Symbionese Liberation Army 1973 - 1975 responsible for bank robberies, murders, kidnappings, etc. were comprised of what type of individuals?
Answer - U.S. citizens
3. Unabomber attacks 1978 - 1995 were carried out by ?
Answer - Theodore Kaczynski a highly educated white male U.S. citizen
4. Oklahoma City Bombings were carried out by?
Answer - Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols, both white American males
5. Centennial Olympic Park Bombing killed 1 and injured 111 people was carried out by ?
Answer - Eric Robert Rudolph a white American male.

Sorry I didn't have enough time to get other cute choices for answers, and I'm really not trying to be a a**hole, but for those who ONLY think terrorist are middle eastern arabs are just fooling themselves.

Terrorist can and are all types and nationalities, don't fool yourself into believing you can "spot" the stereotypical bad guy.

I could have listed dozens of more examples of domestic terrorist incidents but I think you get the point.

That there are incidents that don't fit a clearly defined pattern. Yeah, there are. No one has suggested otherwise.

However, that doesn't make the clearly definable patten go away and pretending it's not there "to be fair" does us no service when it comes to actual security.

Perhaps you can find some incidents of 80 year old grandmothers, or former Vice Presidents, or Medal of Honor winners. I haven't heard of any, but I suppose they might have happened.

One bit of reality: you can't protect everywhere against every possible threat. Attempts to be invulnerable against everything mean that you're actually protected against nothing. Practicality suggests concentrating effort on where it will do the most good. Concentrate on where the effort is most likely to do be fruitful.

While it's fallacious to say that that only muslim extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40 can be threats, it is equally fallacious to say that 80 year old grandmothers are as likely to be a threat as muslim extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.

But, in the interests of Political Correctness, we've got to pretend that it's reasonable to spend as much time and effort screening, searching, and inconveniencing former Vice Presidents, 80 year old grandmothers, and Medal of Honor winners as we do screening, searching, and inconveniencing muslim extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

The other factor is that there is a new weapon that terrorists have: all they have to do is have someone try something and fail and we'll do their work for them. The shoe bombing trick was tried once. Now everyone has to do the show thing going through security. And many people find their "drive instead" distance going up (putting another bit of strain on an already overburdened economy). Plan to smuggle in some liquid binary explosives. Don't even get to the airport with them. And the resulting restrictions pushes the "drive instead" level up yet again and once more the economy takes a hit.

I have to wonder if the cumulative damage of all these "security measures" isn't greater than a successful attack would be. Kind of like the difference between a dirty bomb and a nuke. A nuke does a lot of damage all at once, killing (for the most part) relatively quickly, while the dirty bomb lingers, killing slowly and painfully.

And we're doing it to ourselves.

 

[BE Mike]

dburkhead,

It is obvious to me that you have no real world experience in law enforcement or security work or you wouldn't be making the statements you have made. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. You are apparently highly educated, however. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

 

[dburkhead]

dburkhead,

It is obvious to me that you have no real world experience in law enforcement or security work or you wouldn't be making the statements you have made. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. You are apparently highly educated, however. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Since I know a number of people in law enforcment and security work who make exactly the kind of statements I made your attempt at argument ad hominem (in the sense of the actual fallacy--argument based on who makes a claim rather than the content of the claim itself rather then the common misconception of simply personal insult) falls rather flat.

And which statements in particular do you claim would not be made by someone with experience in the field? And what, exactly, is incorrect about them. Be specific.

 

[BE Mike]

Since I know a number of people in law enforcment and security work who make exactly the kind of statements I made your attempt at argument ad hominem (in the sense of the actual fallacy--argument based on who makes a claim rather than the content of the claim itself rather then the common misconception of simply personal insult) falls rather flat.

And which statements in particular do you claim would not be made by someone with experience in the field? And what, exactly, is incorrect about them. Be specific.

It looks like I was right! Having "friends" in the areas is no replacement for real world experience. I am not a big fan of philosophy.

Although I am retired, I don't seem to have the time to make verbose posts. I will say that you contradict yourself, when on the one hand you say that since only one shoe bomb was found being used by a terrorist, it should be ignored. On the other hand you infer that since Muslim extremists are the problem, that the TSA should focus on them and leave folks who do not fit that profile alone. You would not use past observations in the former, because it inconveniences you and "dehumanizes" you. In the latter, you would use past experience. This isn't about airport security, it is about you. You have an agenda. This is all about you feeling that the TSA employees aren't equal to you and you don't want them doing anything that will inconvenience you. Because you have to submit to these lesser people, you feel as though it, in your own words "dehumanizes" you. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Certainly everyone should be treated with dignity and repect. No one should be abused either verbally or physically. Dealing with the public is no easy thing, especially when the job requires doing things that the customers really don't like. When I said that "they must not be doing everything wrong" since we haven't had a repeat of 9/11, I simply give credit where credit is due.

 

[dburkhead]

It looks like I was right! Having "friends" in the areas is no replacement for real world experience. I am not a big fan of philosophy.

Logical fallacies are not "philosophy" and it's not a matter of being a fan or not. It's a matter of whether the arguments made actually have any bearing on the conclusion.

In the fallacy of argument ad hominem, instead of arguing the content of the argument. You are doing that in attempting to dismiss my position based on whether or not I have personal experience in law enforcement or security. That fails on two accounts: one is that I'm not alone in saying what I'm saying and that many people who do have firsthand experience in the issue are saying the same things. The other is, well, if you could specifically refute the content of my posts you would do so rather than fall back on logical fallacies.

Although I am retired, I don't seem to have the time to make verbose posts. I will say that you contradict yourself, when on the one hand you say that since only one shoe bomb was found being used by a terrorist, it should be ignored.

This is called the straw man fallacy. That's the one where you assume the other individuals position is something other then their actual one because the assumed position is easier to "refute." Problem is that it doesn't refute the actual position.

That is not what I said. I pointed out that a failed attempt, one already stopped by existing security, was then used to add further delays and inconveniences to travelers.

On the other hand you infer that since Muslim extremists are the problem, that the TSA should focus on them and leave folks who do not fit that profile alone.

Another straw man. Again, that's not what I said. What was pointed out (the "quiz" is not my own, and, IIRC, I linked to where I got it), was that a large number of incidents come from a certain population. Placing more effort and scrutiny on the areas from which, historically, the greatest number of like incidents is more likely to be fruitful is more efficient and more likely to actually be effective than attempting to be strong everywhere, which is just another way of being weak everywhere.

You would not use past observations in the former, because it inconveniences you and "dehumanizes" you. In the latter, you would use past experience.

Do you honestly not see the difference between an ongoing, extended pattern and a single, isolated event, particularly when the isolated event failed.

This isn't about airport security, it is about you.

And we're back to argument ad hominem.

You have an agenda. This is all about you feeling that the TSA employees aren't equal to you and you don't want them doing anything that will inconvenience you. Because you have to submit to these lesser people, you feel as though it, in your own words "dehumanizes" you. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

And how we have the shifting ground fallacy. We also have the straw man. It's not about TSA employees being "lesser people." It's about my being unwilling to accept them as being superior people.

Despite your attempts at poisoning the well (another logical fallacy), it's about liberty. Is this a free country or not?

Certainly everyone should be treated with dignity and repect. No one should be abused either verbally or physically. Dealing with the public is no easy thing, especially when the job requires doing things that the customers really don't like. When I said that "they must not be doing everything wrong" since we haven't had a repeat of 9/11, I simply give credit where credit is due.

And here we have the fallacy of "post hoc ergo proptery hoc"--after this, therefore because of this. We have two events: the implementation of the various security measures and the non-event of their not being a repeat of 9/11. There is no necessary connection between the two. To give "credit where credit is due" one has to first establish that the credit is actually due.

For instance, do you know that anyone even tried to do a repeat of 9/11 or something similar? If so, where are the arrests for the people caught by all this new security? We have someone stopped and searched because their shampoo bottle leaked a bit and triggered one of the chemical sensors for explosives, but there are a distinct lack of terrorists arrested for trying to carry in actual explosives. We have passengers stripped of nail clippers (I suppose so they can't clip someone to death) but there are a distinct lack of potential terrorists arrested for trying to bring in more box cutters.

And there are several ways that I can think of to bring down a plane if I were willing to die to do it that nothing short of full GI endoscopy, full body CAT scans, or exploratory surgery on every passenger (to be sure of getting the one who has the bomb since you can't focus on the most likely suspects).

And, as far as the security checkpoint is concerned, 9/11 could be repeated again with anything short of a strip search (again, of every passenger to be sure of getting the one's involved, once again since you can't focus on the most likely suspects). Don't believe it? Did you know that surgeons, for special applications, use obsidian and glass scalpels? Obsidian and glass are not metallic. They are silicon dioxide--the same stuff as sand. They aren't picked up by metal detectors. Nor do they show up well on X-rays and even if "not well" is still "well enough", how they were positioned could make a big difference in detectability even once the TSA deploys that full body X-ray.

The big difference between 9/10/01 and now is that even if a group of terrorists got onto a plane with blades, guns, or even bombs, they would fail at being able to use the aircraft as cruise missiles. The passenger and crew would not allow it. And, after 9/11, nobody these days will be willing to believe any offers to "negotiate" from the terrorists.

If all you want to do is kill a planeload of people or the equvalent numbers, there are other ways to do it. A suicide bomber at security, right before he goes through the actual checkpoint would be quite effective in that regard. But taking an aircraft and either holding the passengers hostage or using the airplane as some kind of cruise missile? Unlikely to be effective for reasons that have nothing to do with TSA.

Under those circumstances, where's their motivation for putting any real effort into sucessfully hijacking an airplane? Failed attempts do them just as much good (see previous comments about the shoe bomber and the liquid bombers) with far less effort.

 

[Fletch]

Awesome post, dburkhead. Repped.

 

[Bill of Rights]

It looks like I was right! Having "friends" in the areas is no replacement for real world experience. I am not a big fan of philosophy.

Although I am retired, I don't seem to have the time to make verbose posts. I will say that you contradict yourself, when on the one hand you say that since only one shoe bomb was found being used by a terrorist, it should be ignored. On the other hand you infer that since Muslim extremists are the problem, that the TSA should focus on them and leave folks who do not fit that profile alone. You would not use past observations in the former, because it inconveniences you and "dehumanizes" you. In the latter, you would use past experience. This isn't about airport security, it is about you. You have an agenda. This is all about you feeling that the TSA employees aren't equal to you and you don't want them doing anything that will inconvenience you. Because you have to submit to these lesser people, you feel as though it, in your own words "dehumanizes" you. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Certainly everyone should be treated with dignity and repect. No one should be abused either verbally or physically. Dealing with the public is no easy thing, especially when the job requires doing things that the customers really don't like. When I said that "they must not be doing everything wrong" since we haven't had a repeat of 9/11, I simply give credit where credit is due.

To say that the 80 yr old grandmother is an equal threat to the MME 17-40 is analogous to saying that the 40-ish golf foursome is as equally likely as the four punk-ass kids on the corner wearing specific colors to rob a convenience store at gunpoint. The g'mother could be actively or passively involved in a hijack attempt, but the likelihood is minimal. The golfers could have guns and rob the VP, but if I had to watch one or the other group, my money's on the golfers to stop at the 19th Hole for a drink, not to make the kid at the register his britches. Sorry, BE Mike, I can't agree with you here. David's specifically said that his opinions, while his own, are not solely his own. Whether he is or has ever been a LEO is irrelevant. His facts are sound and his opinions logical.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[4sarge]

TSA Thugs

YouTube - Man detained and harassed at airport for carrying CASH!

 

[public servant]

To say that the 80 yr old grandmother is an equal threat to the MME 17-40 is analogous to saying that the 40-ish golf foursome is as equally likely as the four punk-ass kids on the corner wearing specific colors to rob a convenience store at gunpoint. The g'mother could be actively or passively involved in a hijack attempt, but the likelihood is minimal. The golfers could have guns and rob the VP, but if I had to watch one or the other group, my money's on the golfers to stop at the 19th Hole for a drink, not to make the kid at the register his britches. Sorry, BE Mike, I can't agree with you here. David's specifically said that his opinions, while his own, are not solely his own. Whether he is or has ever been a LEO is irrelevant. His facts are sound and his opinions logical.

Blessings,
Bill

And how long do you think it will be before a terrorist group realizes you're profiling and changes the way they do business? Would it really be that difficult to find 4 westerners with allegiance to Allah willing to die as martyrs in his name? (or any other terrorist group) Treat everyone the same. Then no one can complain they are being singled out. It's the price of living in the world we do today.

The threat (no matter how minimal you believe it is) is always there. You'll never be 100% sure you've caught everything. But why risk hundreds or thousands of innocent lives? I've been stopped twice at TSA checkpoints and patted down and had my luggage hand searched. Once when an explosive detector went off because of a bag filled with about 200 rolls of camera film. The other when a detector went off because something spilled in a carry-on bag. But I'd rather that I was stopped than not. To me, it at least shows a good faith effort on the part of TSA. I personally have never had a bad experience with the employees of TSA....but I'm sure it's like everything else....there are the good as well as the bad.

While there ISN'T a terrorist hiding behind every bush....there are a LOT of bushes out there for one to hide behind. Just my opinion...whether you share it or not. It is however, an opinion that is shared by most of the LEO's I know....I guess we just know different ones.

 

[dburkhead]

And how long do you think it will be before a terrorist group realizes you're profiling and changes the way they do business? Would it really be that difficult to find 4 westerners with allegiance to Allah willing to die as martyrs in his name? (or any other terrorist group) Treat everyone the same. Then no one can complain they are being singled out. It's the price of living in the world we do today.

You mean like street gangs change the way they do business all the time? So all this info passed around among LEO's about recognizing various gangs is just a waste of time?

You do realize, don't you, that this "find four Westerners" idea significantly complicates their task. For one thing everyone not of their "inside group" they "recruit" is one more chance for a leak. These RIF (Radical Islamic Fundamentalist) groups come from societies where trust is familial rather than general. "Me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousins, me my brother and my cousins against the world" runs far deeper there than it does in the West.

The very characteristics that make them RIFS works against them recruiting from outside the group. For an example see the case of the "fellow traveller" Beverly Giesbrecht (there's a thread on that topic elsewhere on this board) who traveled to Pakistan, was quickly kidnapped, and was being held for ransom with execution being the price for non-payment. That kind of behavior gets in the way of recruiting "westerners."

And if they stop that kind of behavior, well, that would require a major change in their society and would be a good think in that it would go a long, long way toward making them no longer RIFs.

The threat (no matter how minimal you believe it is) is always there. You'll never be 100% sure you've caught everything.

Straw man. Nobody here has claimed 100% perfection in catching everything. It's the folk in charge of the TSA who seem to be trying for 100%, no matter how much they trample on the rights of everyone else in the process.

But why risk hundreds or thousands of innocent lives?

Hundreds of thousands, huh? We've gone from under 3000 in the largest attack ever to hundreds of thousands now? Is this like Pelosi's "500 million jobs lost ever month if we don't..." a number that has no real basis but sounds good?

I've been stopped twice at TSA checkpoints and patted down and had my luggage hand searched. Once when an explosive detector went off because of a bag filled with about 200 rolls of camera film. The other when a detector went off because something spilled in a carry-on bag. But I'd rather that I was stopped than not.

Well, it's a good thing you didn't have a Congressional Medal of Honor on you, or were a former VP of the United States, or have been using a wheelchair.

To me, it at least shows a good faith effort on the part of TSA.

And I ask again, how many folk have actually been stopped by this? We should have arrests in hand if anyone were actually attempting to carry a bomb or a weapon.

As for "good faith effort," yep, air travel is safe from rogue nail clippers. It's just more of the "do something" BS without any consideration of whether the "something" is effective, let alone necessary. And from the results we're seeing, there is zero consideration towards actually protecting the rights of citizens in the US.

I personally have never had a bad experience with the employees of TSA....but I'm sure it's like everything else....there are the good as well as the bad.

See uptopic for why your personally not having had a bad experience isn't terribly significant.

While there ISN'T a terrorist hiding behind every bush....there are a LOT of bushes out there for one to hide behind.

You see, that's just the thing. You cannot look behind every bush. The police cannot be everywhere. That's why the courts say that the police do not have a responsibility to protect individuals. They can't.

That's why the Militia is, or should be, the most important first line of defense.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.

That principle applies, or should apply, to far more than just foreign invasion. Admiral Yamamoto's statement is a specific instance of a general principle--the very reason the 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution.

As for this "security uber alles" approach to air travel, Franklin had something to say on that topic. I'm sure you know the quote to which I am referring.

Just my opinion...whether you share it or not. It is however, an opinion that is shared by most of the LEO's I know....I guess we just know different ones.

Well, yeah. I tend to hang out where people who actually consider protecting the rights of people in the US is the most important duty come to gather. The LEOs that would gravitate there would tend to share that philosophy or they wouldn't stay long.

So, yeah, we probably move in different circles.

 

[Bill of Rights]

And how long do you think it will be before a terrorist group realizes you're profiling and changes the way they do business? Would it really be that difficult to find 4 westerners with allegiance to Allah willing to die as martyrs in his name? (or any other terrorist group) Treat everyone the same. Then no one can complain they are being singled out. It's the price of living in the world we do today.

The threat (no matter how minimal you believe it is) is always there. You'll never be 100% sure you've caught everything. But why risk hundreds or thousands of innocent lives? I've been stopped twice at TSA checkpoints and patted down and had my luggage hand searched. Once when an explosive detector went off because of a bag filled with about 200 rolls of camera film. The other when a detector went off because something spilled in a carry-on bag. But I'd rather that I was stopped than not. To me, it at least shows a good faith effort on the part of TSA. I personally have never had a bad experience with the employees of TSA....but I'm sure it's like everything else....there are the good as well as the bad.

While there ISN'T a terrorist hiding behind every bush....there are a LOT of bushes out there for one to hide behind. Just my opinion...whether you share it or not. It is however, an opinion that is shared by most of the LEO's I know....I guess we just know different ones.

1) The effort at, and personal responsibility for, one's own individual, fundamental rights and liberties.

2) The illusion of security provided from without, by unknown others who must consider their own safety (and desire to go home to their families at the end of the day) as well.

Choose only one of the above. They are mutually exclusive.

I think my choice is obvious.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CulpeperMM]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ben Franklin
February 17, 1775

 

[public servant]

Hundreds of thousands, huh? We've gone from under 3000 in the largest attack ever to hundreds of thousands now? Is this like Pelosi's "500 million jobs lost ever month if we don't..." a number that has no real basis but sounds good?

It was "hundreds or thousands"...read it again before you rant. You and Pelosi apparently have at least something in common. And you say "under 3000" like that would be an acceptable number to account for you not to be inconvenienced. While I hear your ideas...I just don't happen to agree with them.