Video Crazy TSA employee – YouTube

Rugape,
Normally I agree with you because I have noticed that your responses are reasoned and articulate. However, the bold (my bolding) portion of your response bothers me. This statement demonstrates the fear mongering of which boogie dog speaks. If you use this as justification for the invasive and intensive searches that TSOs have been required to perform (i.e., rubbing grope-downs, naked scanners) since September 2010, you should qualify this statement by expounding on that statement. For example, answer the obvious question about the "people" (i.e., Who?) "out there" (i.e., Where are these heretofore unnamed/unknown individuals?) "that wish" (i.e., Is this just wishful thinking on their part, or are there actual plans in place?) "to do the US and her people" (i.e., Which people? Who or what is the target?) "harm" (i.e., What kind of harm?). These questions need to be answered before I or anyone else can accept the security measures that are in place today as a necessary and prudent response to threats to airline safety and security.

 

I haven't noticed this. Rugape has repeatedly stated that he/she/it believes that people who "follow the SOP" and "perform their duties professionally" aren't the problem - when they really are. The SOP itself is the problem.

The TSA employees who act like shitheads well beyond "just following orders" are just the icing on the cake. The ones who "just follow orders" are almost worse, because they're the ones who actually believe that what they're doing is somehow justifiable rather than an excuse to allow gropings and theft.

A "reasoned and articulate" person who chooses to continue their employment with the TSA is neither.

 

I said that his responses were reasoned and articulate. I did not say that he was reasoned and articulate; however, that is not the point of my post. I am trying to get him to look at that portion of his post that I am objecting to which seems to be in conflict with his signature. If he will actually analyze the statement, and not simply parrot the "TSA party line" as is the habit of most TSA employees, maybe he will rethink his position on the SOP, or maybe he will just change his signature...who knows?

 

I was really hoping for an honest answer to my question.

As I understand TSA's mission it is primarily limited to keeping WEI off of airplanes. Yet TSA is engaged in many things that do not support that goal. ID checks, not related to the mission. Interrogations, not related to the mission. Sexual Assault of passengers, certainly not related to the mission but is happening every day while TSA and its employees deny such.

TSA has no issues with rolling out unproven and possibly dangerous devices. TSA apparently has no issues abusing the handicapped, elderly, or youngest members of the population and takes no responsibility for acts that are clearly abusive. TSA continues to turn its head with unknown numbers of TSA employee criminals.

I have to conclude that TSA and its employees are not on the side of a free society.

 

What are you talking about? "there should be no fear involved?" Fear on whose part, the flying public or the TSA? If you are talking about screeners, they apparently have no fear of anything at the checkpoint.

Speaking of the flying public and fear is a totally different subject. I would venture that 95%+ of people who have been groped once by the TSA approach a checkpoint full of fear and trepidation. I would also venture that many of those who have not yet had the pleasure of being sexually assaulted at a TSA checkpoint, still approach security wonder if this time it will be them.

To support DeafBlonde, please tell us more definitively who these people are. More important, if they are "out there", why have they not struck out at us yet? And please don't try to justify with the FBI sting operations or the terrorist wannabes like the "Times Square Bomber."

 

I doubt it. I really do. After November, 2010, there are exactly two types of TSA employees left - those who know they're evil but simply don't care, and those too stupid to figure out that what the orders they're "just following" are evil.

 

Found the link elsewhere but I think it pretty well sums things up.

 

I fixed your embed -- you have to used the "media" UBB code. You can't use html in posts

 

To me the paraphrase is to provide as safe an environment for the transportation systems of the US as painlessly as possible for all involved. The official line is here : http://www.tsa.gov/who_we_are/mission.shtm

 

The who is extremely nebulous at this moment, there are literally thousands of people that wish to do people of the US, and the systems of the US harm. I could give a dissertation and generate a list of major organizations that have stated damage to the US in any way, but then it would be a huge list, and would take days to compile it from open source media. I will give a small list of somewhat well known organizations just for time sake:

1. Al-Shabaab - link to some basic info on them here - http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/al_shabaab.html
2. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed) - link to some basic info http://www.nctc.gov/site/groups/jem.html
3. domestic terror suspects - lists following -

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/dt
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terror/terrorism-2000-2001

Those last two include some oldies, but also some within the last few years. so, the where is here, there, overseas. They could be anywhere - I do not currently work in intel analysis, so I do not have a fix on many individuals. The problem is that we don't have a specific stereotype of what a terrorist looks like - and that not all people that wish harm are terrorists per se, they could just be unhinged. Wish falls into two categories - those that have the wherewithal to do the damage in some fashion, and those that just wish to. The first category is the one that we should be concerned with, there are groups (domestic and foriegn) that could actually manage to hit us in several different fashions. Large scale attacks are pretty hard to pull off at this point because there is so much attention focused on the larger groups. However, a determined chucklehead with a machine gun or explosive can kill and/or injure a ton of people at a large gathering place. The chances of this are not huge, but there is enough possibility that it bears looking at and considering. Harm can be killing people or damaging infrastructure/systems of this country. The recent cyber attacks on the financial systems and defense systems are a form of terrorism, but they haven't been brute force enough yet to do epic damage. I don't list this to instill fear in anyone, simply to give you an indicator that many of the things that are out there are real. Does this mean you and I should run around claiming the sky is falling and worrying ourselves into oblivion? Of course not. It is simply something that informed citizens should know about and consider, not work themselves into a frenzy. Part of the biggest recurring target lists has been aviation, because a hijacked jumbo jet full of fuel can do a gigantic amount of damage, and even bringing one of the medium sized airliners down can kill 150 people in the air, and possibly even more on the ground if doen correctly. Thus the focus on aviation by TSA. Aviation is the largest yield for the minimum investment. Does this mean that I agree with the way some info is put out by the powers that be? Nope. Does it mean that we should focus all of our efforts on aviation? Nope. Do I agree with all of the policies? Nope. However, I focus on what I am tasked with doing, and doing so as unobtrusively as possible, and helping as many people in the process as I can. Do I wish that Americans in general were more aware of things that happen in our world and neighborhoods? Yup. Do I think that everyone should be in fear of every little thing around them and spy on their neighbors and shun newcomers? Not on your life. I also think we should beef up the HUMINT factor in our intelligence systems, we are losing years of valuable intel in areas we have interests and enemies, and it will cost us in the future, but that is not something that Joe on Elm street needs to be aware of on a molecular level. Long winded way of saying I don't think the average citizen has any more chance of being hurt in a terrorist attack than anyone else here, but there is a series of threats out there that we as a Nation should be aware of and watch for. The contrast in opinions is not so great, I do not wish to see our citizenry cowering from unnamed wackos, but I do want our Nation to be aware of the ones that are serious and to work towards preventing them from being able to do so.

 

Rugape wrote:

You personally might not want to see this, but our government and your employer certainly do. The only way the TSA can continue its abuse at checkpoints is by keeping the flying population in a perpetual state of fear. If a significant per cent of the population refused to be cowed, the TSA would cease to exist.

 

No fear on either parties part. TSOs shouldnt be scared of passengers, they should not be overbearing or unprofessional either. Passengers are simply trying to get from point a to b as efficiently as possible, it is not our job to disrupt that for no reason, we are simply there to screen them and prevent "bad" things through.

There are many theories on why we don't get hit here, one is that they are a non-existent threat. Others posit that the sophistication level is lower with the majority of the ones that wish to do harm. Others propose that many are in a wait and see position, waiting for an optimal time to strike and do as much damage as possible - also some say that they are waiting to coordinate several attacks at once. Some say we have stopped more attacks at the beginning stages than are reported (I for one, believe that to be the case to some extent). Others say we have just gotten lucky. I can't give you a specific reason why we have not been "hit" any more often or on a larger scale. The fact may be a combination of all those theories combined (which I am pretty certain is the most likely scenario). I simply do not have enough information to give you a end all be all reason for why.

 

West, you either don't have a clue or you just don't want to understand what most people feel when approaching a security checkpoint, the apprehension and angst that accompanies the screening ordeal. There is nothing "simple" about the screening process on the part of the passenger, when they have to wonder if they are going to be able to just walk through a WTMD, be seen naked and possibly face an extremely invasive groping session.

It is the TSA that has created this situation and not the passengers.

 

Your superiors are using fear mongering to push the TSA agenda.

These terrorist that TSA is so concerned about must be those 5&6 year old kids that TSA screeners like to feel up at the checkpoint, at least when they can't get their hands on a 80 year old granny.

The threat may exist but not to the degree that TSA is trying to convince the public it does. If any group truly wanted to attack America they would and they would succeed. Might not be an airliner as plenty of other targets are readily available.

What you and TSA are doing damages America as badly as a successful terrorist attack would.

 

From someone who claims to be a TSA employee? What caused your renewed optimism?

 

Thanks, I know this was covered in the beginning but I haven't used the imbedded video feature only once before that I recall. Will try to get it right next time.

 

Moment of weakness.

 

Worse. They're doing the terrorists work for them by trying to keep people so afraid that they'll submit to the gropings and irradiation without grumbling too much.

I also note that Rugape falls back to the argument that "a hijacked jumbo jet full of fuel can do a gigantic amount of damage" despite the simple fact that it's not going to happen again, as has been repeatedly proven by the actions of flight crew and passengers. It's also why the cockpit doors are locked.

And yet the TSA wants people to believe that anything they do today is going to "prevent another 9/11."

If not for fear and paranoia, the TSA wouldn't exist. Period. Private screening would continue, of course, but there wouldn't be any blue-shirted thugs escorting granny to the broom closet for a strip-search, or sticking their hands into the crotches of six-year-olds.

I don't see the TSA being dissolved any time soon, though. It'd be a tremendous blow to the "job creation" of our current president if 50,000 blue-shirted morons, perverts, thieves, and thugs were to suddenly be unemployed. And if the airline industry totally collapses, they'll just move to the highways anyway.

 

Hammer to nail head. Thank you, boggie dog.

As for Rugape's long-winded answers, let's cut to the chase: yes, Rugape, there are people out there who want to harm us. No (expletive deleted) kidding. It takes 58,000 employees, $8.1 billion a year, and training in pawing people's genitals to figure that out?? God almighty, the agency is even more stupid than I thought it was.

Repeat after me: Life entails risk. Life entails risk. We are at risk every time we get up in the morning. Every time we walk out the door. No, check that -- more accidents happen in the home.

As you already know, you are in more danger of getting killed by driving to the airport than you are of being killed in a terrorist attack. You are in more danger of drowning in your bathtub. Of getting struck by lightning. Of winning the lottery. These are facts. Quit spewing crap. We don't need any condescending lectures about the fact that there are guns, bombs, and other methods of inflicting harm out in the big bad world. We already know that.

And when are you people ever going to admit that the sitting-duck scenario of passengers bunched up at the checkpoint is just as much of a target as an airplane? How about a subway system? How about train tracks? Drinking water reservoir? Local shopping mall? The garbage you people lap up and regurgitate is truly beyond belief. You can't possibly believe your own (expletive deleted).

 

I didn't think I came across as condescending...