Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Doober, Apr 23, 2012.
Interesting, but I doubt the unions would allow this.
So saying "if they're disruptive to screening operations" automatically means "having legal representation during an issue is disruptive"?
Your statement makes no sense.
The suggestion was that a lawyer be available to assist a traveler in the event of an issue with TSA. Why would TSA have a problem with that? Isn't TSA all about protecting the rights of citizens and making their travel as easy as possible? Or does being held accountable for your individual actions give you cause for concern?
The suggestion was that a lawyer be available to assist the traveler in the event of an issue with TSA. If the lawyer's actions are disruptive to screening operation, whilst he is trying to assist his client, there might be trouble. This is not the same as saying having legal representation is disruptive to screening operations.
If true, this is fascinating.
So, 2 members of a party, sounds to me like it's a party of 5 (mom, dad, 2 kids, grandma), are suspected of bringing through a weapon.
These 2 members are actually part of the "less risk" group of travelers determined to be of less risk by TSA policy (old farts and kids under 12). Additionally, these members of society are either generally unable to carry out a terrorist plot.
Also, these 2 potential terrorists of the "less risky" group both received additional scrutiny and screening at their outbound airport, which cleared them to get on a plane.
The later call to the arriving airport indicates that the first airport failed in its ability to find any WEI.
Does TSA have any idea whatsoever how incredibly stupid stunts like this one make them look? Any idea at all.
Hello DHS trolls: you're all f*cking morons. All of you.
What kind of trouble, and would it be for the passenger, the lawyer, or both? If both, would there be different kinds of trouble for each? If so, please detail what each party could reasonably expect.
Same reason so many TSA schmucks insist that video recording at the checkpoint is "illegal." They don't want their sheer incompetence trotted out into daylight.
If TSA has not defined exactly what being diruptive to screening operations are then I think TSA is on some very weak ground. Where can I find the exact TSA definition of this violation?
Which you can see at the account of the latest outrage -- the TSA's abuse of a 7-year-old girl with cerebral palsy. The smurf stuck her hand in front of the camera, saying "Don't record me! Don't record me!" or however she phrased it. The video's been pulled from the original article, probably because it was so short, replaced by photos of the victim, Dina Frank, and her family.
That's the incident I was thinking of when I wrote it. You'd think that an organization as "professionalized" as the TSA could at least get the memo to their slack-jawed knuckle-draggers that video at the checkpoint is NOT forbidden by the TSA, and it exposes them as too stupid to be allowed to breed every time they spout it.
Sure but no need with real cops because there's accountability system for their actions.
With TSA, "accountability" amounts to what? Vague 'retraining' or 'administrative leave with pay?' -a few days to kick up your feet and get paid for it. Not exactly even close to material needed to be on the same level.
Now cross-posted here:
I'll be cross-posting everything there from now on. Huge readership. Should help get the word out.
I note that Blogger Bob or one of his servants posted 57 comments to the TSA Denial story. All 57 were negative towards TSA. Seems Booby didn't like the trend of things so he shut down the comments and has yet to either respond or post what other comments may be waiting.
Maybe I am naive but don't you think they would learn?
I have yet to see any evidence that the TSA or any of its employees are capable of learning.
Why do they have to learn? There are no consequences for them if they don't.
They have absolute power. They are propagandists. The purpose of propagandists is to spin their tales, their obfuscations, their equivocations, their lies, over and over and over and over and over and over. And over. Again and again and again. It doesn't matter what the truth is. It doesn't matter what reality is. It doesn't matter what empirical evidence is. None of it matters. All that matters is the repetition of their propaganda. To the point that even they themselves start to believe it.
There's IAB, but I wouldn't say that cops are completely accountable for their actions.
Facebook pulled all links to the four year old grope story. Lew Rockwell has the scoop.
Links is at http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/110675.html
Sorry, on phone walking thru store. Can't post many words.
Separate names with a comma.