Terrorists Evolve. Threats Evolve. Security Must Stay Ahead. You Play A Part.

1.19.2009

Administrator Kip Hawley's Final TSA Blog Post

TSA opened up this web dialogue about a year ago to get feedback from the public and engage with them on the issues that they presented. We have learned a great deal from those of you who have posted and I am grateful for your engagement with us. While some of the individual comments are painful to read and/or based on something that is factually wrong, taken as an aggregate there are undeniable, unavoidable themes.

One of those themes is that TSA's security is intellect-free. The broad categories seem to be about doubting the reality of the current threat, perceived vulnerabilities, and experiences that defy common sense.

With this post, I would like to touch on threat and vulnerabilities and focus on how TSA is introducing more 'smart' security at the airport.

Threat information comes in many forms, virtually all of it coming to us with restrictions on how we can use it. The good news is that we get it -- and use it -- to craft our security activities, and we literally do that every day. The bad news is that a condition of getting the really detailed and actionable information is that we cannot fully explain to the public the 'why' behind what we do. Ellen Howe's previous post discusses how we have tried to get out as much as we can on the 'why,' most recently, with the Ad Council.

The point on vulnerabilities is that since there are vulnerabilities in every system, what's important is to identify them and then compensate for those vulnerabilities with other measures. TSA is involved in risk-management - understanding our vulnerabilities, looking at what terrorists may be planning, and devoting our main efforts to reduce the risk of attacks with catastrophic consequences.

You might look at it like mapping out a spectrum of attacks causing catastrophic consequences, then overlaying it with vulnerabilities, and then circling in red the vulnerabilities associated with high-consequence attack scenarios where we know terrorists are plotting. We look for compensating measures across the spectrum to protect against vulnerabilities or plotting of which we are unaware. But first of all, we take action to close down any vulnerabilities circled in red. When we see an intersection of threat, vulnerability and consequence, TSA takes action as we have with liquids and shoes even though we know that they will not be popular. We are more likely to consider convenience issues in other areas of the spectrum and devote considerable effort in working with our airport and airline colleagues to make things work with the least possible inconvenience. There are technology answers -- but we have to close the gap until the technology answer works and is deployed.

Part of the problem with the 'common sense' theme is that our rhetoric of smarter, flexible, unpredictable, stay-ahead-of-the-terrorist strategy can clash with your personal experience. Some measures are in place now and others rolling out that will sharply reduce that disconnect. I will mention a few examples in each of our key areas: people, technology, and process.

First off with our people, TSA is about two-thirds of the way through retraining our entire airport workforce, from Federal Security Director to front-line Officer. (Headquarters elements are also included.) This training is worthy of its own post but it is two full days in length and covers the gamut from human factors to updated information on terrorist weapons and tactics. It is all about being smart about how we do our security job and how to think in terms of identifying real - and sophisticated - threats and less about running through a checklist.

Secondly, we are also about two-thirds through a major deployment of much more sophisticated carry-on bag scanners, AT-X-ray. About 600 of the new, smarter AT's are deployed already with another 300 more in the next few months. These are the machines that will be able to detect threat liquids (or powders, gels, etc.) automatically and will allow TSA to change the baggie requirement and clear up many of the head-scratching moments you now endure. (Probably about a year away.)

Finally, I have spoken about wanting to break up the rigidity of checkpoint screening and mentioned a goal of changing it up, spreading it out, and calming it down. With a re-trained workforce that has better technology, we can make the existing process calmer. There are opportunities also to make process changes that will make things smoother. For instance, where we have rigid and predictable criteria for extra screening (like last minute travel changes and one-way tickets), we can get more security value by using less obvious criteria like randomness or behavior and make things less congested at the checkpoint.

While this forum will continue to hear from our vigorous critics, I hope that in addition to the words of the indefatigable Blogger Bob and his colleagues, you will see that TSA has backed them up with actions in the year that the EoS Blog has been in business.

Our on-line presence is much clearer, deeper, and more accessible - and improvements will continue. Black Diamond, laptop bags, clearer signage, better explanations of the “why”, are all examples of actions taken by TSA that were helped by this blog discussion. You've helped us prioritize your pain points and we do, in fact, work to reduce those.

The security needs in aviation (and surface transportation) are significant and on-going. Real security risk mitigation can only happen when all parties - including the public - are active, positive participants. The men and women of TSA are amazing in their commitment to protect you and it has been an honor to serve with them. I hope that, going forward, your personal experience with our people, bolstered by better technology and process, will bring us together in support of our common objective - untroubled transportation to our chosen destination and a safe, smooth return home.

Thank you for your interest and participation,

Kip

127 Comments:

Blogger MSC said...

First, I have to say that I give kudos to you guys for being (as far as I know) the only government agency to post a blog that is very frank with the public.

I do scratch my head often when I travel, and have to wonder if you guys are any better than the screeners we had on September 11th. I sometimes ask myself, would the current screeners find a box cutter with precision? That I do not know, but I do appreciate your efforts to focus on behavior techniques, which I think will be much more effective than shoe and liquid screenings.

I am pleased with some of your improvements, such as allowing me to bring my cigarette lighter with me (your notice on repealing that ban was quite amusing).

I look forward to bringing my liquids on the plane again.

January 19, 2009 9:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have read all of the blog posts and would like to thank you for all that you ahve done to keep us safe Thank You

January 19, 2009 9:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Kip. Been really nice working here with you at the helm. Its been a nice improvement since you joined. GL in the future.

C'mon bloggers, lets be nice to Kip in his final post. He played ball with you guys so say something nice. Show some class if you can.

January 19, 2009 10:22 PM

 
Blogger RB said...

Sorry Anon, I can't thank someone who has caused so much damage to the United States Constitution.

It is time for Kip to go!

January 19, 2009 10:52 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If everyone is supposed to know it's 3.4 oz, why use the 3 oz everywhere official?

January 19, 2009 11:57 PM

 
Blogger Tomas said...

Hello again, Kip.

Too bad you didn't bother to answer either direct question I asked you in my reply to your "The Path Forward on Liquids" post.

It's the second reply to your post, so it shouldn't be all that difficult to find, but since you obviously either missed it or it slipped your mind, please allow me to ask the most important of those again...
________________

As a handicapped individual I need reasonable accommodations from the TSA at checkpoints. I'm mobility impaired, but have fought my way OUT of a wheelchair after using one for three years. In part, my limitations are distance I can walk and length of time I can remain standing.

I may not be the person you want in your "Black Diamond" lanes, and finding something as simple as a lane marked with the accepted international handicapped symbol (wheelchair in blue and white), where I will be assured of as short a path as practical, a place to sit to remove my shoes, a place to sit to put my shoes on, and as short a time standing in line as practical, does not seem to be something TSA has figured out.

May I have your personal assurance that your people will work WITH the handicapped rather than against us in getting through these chokepoints quickly and with the accommodations we require?

The requirement to provide needed accommodations is settled law, and shuffling me off to the longest, slowest, least accommodating line possible because I cannot move rapidly is NOT an acceptable response.

Thank you for coming to TSA.gov and I am looking forward to your feedback. -- Kip

And thank you in advance for your answers...

Tom (1 of 5-6)

October 25, 2008 3:52 AM
________________

As this is so close to the end of your being in a position to answer, perhaps you can pass the question on to your successor.

Sadly the "dialogue" allegedly started by this blog has been much more one sided than it should have been. Many question, few answers.

I look forward to the changes the future will bring.

Tom (1 of 5-6)

January 20, 2009 2:14 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Before we start trashing Kip, I want you guys to think about a few things.

Would you have created a Blog where you knew you would be personally attacked and then allow those attack posts to be made public? You have to admit that takes some stones, it was not like the man was in the dark about how people felt about him, the "Kip Hawley is an idiot" websites, t-shirts and underwear were a dead giveaway.

Have you guys looked at the other government blogs? Unless you are asking a question without any commentary or you are praising that particular group, your post would not make it. That has not been the case here and I for one appreciate that.

I can see in the year that this Blog has been active the TSA has listened to some of our concerns and have made changes to address those concerns. Granted there is still a lot that needs to be fixed but Kip got the agency when it was already broken, repairs take time.

As you guys already know Kip and I do not agree on a lot of things, and you can be sure that I do think that some of the things the TSA does are statutorily illegal and unconstitutional.

But, and here is the important point, I do not believe that any of the things that frustrate us were perpetrated by Kip with nefarious intent.

Kip, Thank you for your effort, good luck and God bless on all your future endeavors.

January 20, 2009 4:21 AM

 
Anonymous NoClu said...

See ya.

Thanks for establishing this blog.

January 20, 2009 9:35 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kip,

I recognize your passsion for TSA. I also recognize your interaction with the flying public. It was brave for you to put TSA out there like that. I also want to say that good or bad comments, you were willing to take them all. We will miss you and innovative ideas. I hope I will see you one day in one of my lines. I will be able to show you that the negative bloggers are wrong and you have truly left a positive legacy.

January 20, 2009 10:40 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LA Times on "terrorism" convictions shows the effect of "flexible, unpredictable" enforcements of ill-defined rules.


Kip @ "Real security risk mitigation can only happen when all parties - including the public - are active, positive participants."

Real security risk mitigation happened long before TSA--when the cockpit doors were armored, and the parties on the planes (the flight crews and passengers) changed their response to hijackings. Since then, everything TSA has done has been a Cover-Your-Self bureaucracy.

I guess hiring a bunch of marketing geniuses (Ad Council) to package your "product" as the solution to terrorism is the only option your mangement has.

January 20, 2009 11:02 AM

 
Anonymous George said...

Whatever my disagreements and criticisms of the TSA and of Kip, I do have to give Kip credit for several things that can only be called courageous. The first is his candor about acknowledging the many problems his agency has with public opinion and credibility. As a loyal appointee of an administration that considers itself infallible, publicly admitting to the TSA's problems must be an act of great courage. And as part of an administration that has made no secret of its intolerance for questions or criticism, Kip also demonstrates courage in opening up this blog to all manner of questioning and criticism. That the questions mostly remain unanswered and the criticism mostly ignored matters less than the existence of an open forum sponsored by an agency of the Bush administration. And Kip deserves credit for that, irrespective of its effectiveness.

I also believe it's unfair and inappropriate to blame Kip for what some people (like RB) consider an infringement of constitutional liberties. Regardless of the courage Kip has demonstrated, he is still a loyal appointee of the Bush administration. He and his agency are constrained by that administration's ideology and approach to matters of security and civil liberties. So he presumably is duty-bound to respond to questions and criticism by reminding us of the fear we all felt on 9/11, and to implement the obsession of his bosses for secrecy. Whatever some may consider "damage to the United States Constitution" was perpetrated from the White House, and dutifully flowed down through the President's loyal appointees. The failings that have caused the public to distrust and resent the TSA (and which are reiterated in blog comments here) are those of the Bush administration overall. Kip is merely following the orders and and implementing the policies of his bosses as they apply to his agency.

I wish Kip well in his next endeavor. And I hope that his successor will implement a more rational approach to security and civil liberties, and will have the authority to remake the TSA into an agency that earns the respect and trust of the public. For as Kip acknowledges, "[r]eal security risk mitigation can only happen when all parties - including the public - are active, positive participants."

Ave atque vale, Kip.

January 20, 2009 11:48 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Show some class if you can."

Kip Hawley's reign of terror and lies has done nothing to make anyone safer, and much to make air travel more dangerous. He has been a blight on this nation, and that truth must not be swept under the rug in the name of social niceties.

January 20, 2009 3:08 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for opening up this blog and suffering our criticism. I may not approve of all your decisions, but I do appreciate your willingness to take feedback, this blog, and your service to our great country.

January 20, 2009 3:14 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kip,

Thank you for all you have done to lead the agency toward a realistic, working security team. I came onto TSA during the first days at BWI and worked across the country training and screening. Even joined you in NAC1. We will miss you and wish you the best of luck in the future.

Contrary to the doubt bloggers; you have provided the leadership and backbone that brought the agency from ponderous and regimented to nimble and engaged with our public.

Again, many thanks!

Joe

January 20, 2009 3:49 PM

 
Anonymous winstonsmith said...

Good riddance Kip. You will not be missed by me or by anyone who flies regularly. While the Obama administration has its hands full coming in with the mess that your former bosses left across the landscape of our government, I am hopeful that he and his appointees will put in place more common sense regulations that not only address real threats, but respect the Constitution in ways that the TSA under your leadership seems to have forgotten.

January 20, 2009 4:02 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

Bye, bye... Don't bother with a self serving book...
Our check in luggage still isn't safe from intrusion. Too big a problem for you to handle, I guess.
I hope your replacement can do a better job, safe travel for all passengers and their stuff.

January 20, 2009 7:55 PM

 
Anonymous Ed Jopeck said...

Kip,

Thank you for this blog post demonstrating your command of the components of risk (consequences, threats and vulnerabilities) and TSA's use of them to intelligently analyze, prioritize and manage a broad array of transportation risks. It's the only way we, as a nation, can achieve the security we need at a price we can afford. Knowing that, you and TSA have done much to improve the profession of security risk analysis and management.

As both a security risk management professional and a frequent traveler, I know that the reasons behind some of the things TSA does are not always widely understood or popular with the public, but they have kept travelers in the US safe from terrorists these last seven years. The risks have been analyzed and managed effectively. I compliment you on a job well done, thank you for your service, and wish you the best in your future endeavors.

Ed Jopeck
Immediate Past President, Security Analysis and Risk Management Association (SARMA)

January 20, 2009 8:12 PM

 
Anonymous Al Ames said...

Gotta agree with RB ... can't think of someone who's done more damage to the rights of travelers, well, except former Secretary Chertoff.

Kip's butt's covered, so now security is the new administrator's problem.

I hope that whoever Pres. Obama picks has more respect for the Constitution and the rights of Americans while actually keeping us safe.

Al

January 20, 2009 9:30 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

January 20, 2009 11:50 PM

 
Anonymous Earl Pitts said...

Ed,

You work in risk management and can honestly say you believe TSA practice risk management and not risk avoidance?

As someone else who analyzes and manages risk, all I have to say is wow.

Earl

January 21, 2009 11:31 AM

 
Blogger BlognDog said...

Kip:
All the patriotic, feel-good, good-intentions whitewash in the world isn't going to change the fact that a) you delete-o-metered every post I made here asking how it is EVERY other country in the world can keep its citizens safe without abusing their rights but you cannot and b) you still haven't responded to my numerous queries as to why you still have not responded to the two outstanding formal complaints I have filed, one from 2004 and the other from 2007.

As for all of you who think Kip was "courageous" or something for putting up this blog, you are talking about a man who put up this blog as a lame effort to compensate for the fact that he does not answer his phone, answer his emails, respond to his post or reply to his faxes. Responsible civil servants have replied to their critics for millenia. This blog hasn't done anything to earn Hawley any special recognition.

January 21, 2009 12:08 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If only Kip supported doing real risk analysis... the risk analysis that he references was only done in his head. Hopefully the next administration will embrace a more systematic approach to risk management.

January 21, 2009 12:50 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

BlognDog said...

Kip:
All the patriotic, feel-good, good-intentions whitewash in the world isn't going to change the fact that a) you delete-o-metered every post I made here asking how it is EVERY other country in the world can keep its citizens safe without abusing their rights but you cannot and b) you still haven't responded to my numerous queries as to why you still have not responded to the two outstanding formal complaints I have filed, one from 2004 and the other from 2007.

As for all of you who think Kip was "courageous" or something for putting up this blog, you are talking about a man who put up this blog as a lame effort to compensate for the fact that he does not answer his phone, answer his emails, respond to his post or reply to his faxes. Responsible civil servants have replied to their critics for millenia. This blog hasn't done anything to earn Hawley any special recognition.


Weird, all of my posts have showed up and Kip has always answered my emails.

January 21, 2009 12:53 PM

 
Blogger RB said...

I am glad that George can still express his opinions without government interference.

How ever George cannot fly on a commercial aircraft, and soon trains, buses, and ships, without being required to present his ID and travel papers to an agent of the government.

George and some others may be ok with that but I am not and this procedure happened on Kip Hawleys watch.

January 21, 2009 1:47 PM

 
Anonymous TSO Rachel said...

Thank you for all that you have done for TSa and for this country.

January 21, 2009 1:53 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, who's the new guy? And is there any hope of TSA rolling back the unproductive Cover-Your-Self programs?

I mean, if we've got a government bureaucracy buying 6B$ worth of tiger-repellent rocks every year, how do we scale back?

January 21, 2009 2:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Thank you for all that you have done for TSa and for this country."

You could have saved a lot of typing by simply writing, "Thanks for nothing."

January 21, 2009 3:54 PM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Bob ...

For those of us not steeped in how the U.S. Government works ... how does TSA function in this interim period, until a new TSA administrator is appointed and/or confirmed? (Does the appointment of the TSA administrator require the consent of the Senate?)

January 21, 2009 4:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good bye Kip. I hope your organization will now open its doors to reason and Science.

January 21, 2009 6:02 PM

 
Anonymous George said...

RB, at the risk of topic drift, I honestly don't understand why you get your knickers in such a twist over the requirement to show your ID and boarding pass before entering a checkpoint. As the TSA currently implements that requirement, it's merely annoying but harmless security theater that is no threat at all to civil liberties.

The official examines the ID closely, presumably to detect inept attempts at forgery. Then he or she compares the name on the boarding pass with that on the ID. If they match, he or she stamps the boarding pass and admits you to the "real" screening. Since the official doesn't actually do anything else with the documents (such as looking up the actual name in an official database of terrorists, liberals, dissenters, people who post on this blog, and thousands of others who are on the list for no comprehensible reason), I don't see how it threatens civil liberties.

But I also don't see how this particular musical number in the TSA's Security Theater production provides any actual security. It's nothing more than a mindless comparison of two documents. It involves an extra queue that takes time, and it can create difficulties if you aren't meticulous about booking your flights under the exact name on your driving license or passport (e.g., everyone calls me George rather than my embarrassingly pretentious legal name, but the latter is what must appear on my boarding pass to get through this step of TSA screening). I really don't understand what benefit we get in exchange for this annoyance, but I don't see it threatening any civil liberties.

There may in fact be some perfectly valid classified reason for this seemingly absurd procedure. Perhaps it's a "behavior detection" mechanism to select for further scrutiny those who show insufficiently meek deference to the official when presenting their papers? Regardless, it's one of the many utterly unfathomable and seemingly pointless aspects of the "screening experience" that have contributed to the public's skepticism and resentment of the TSA.

If Kip's successor is truly seeking to turn the skeptical traveling public into "active, positive participants," he or she will need to make a priority of carefully reviewing every aspect of the TSA's rules and procedures to ensure that it provides a genuine security benefit commensurate with the burden it imposes.

January 21, 2009 6:19 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do not misunderstand what Kip Hawley has done. Kip has set his legacy in motion with the new training given to all TSA. ENGAGE! is going to set in motion the new security that the TSA is providing. A new administrator is not going to change that but they will embrace it and nuture it. TSA is setup by law of congress. TSA is not going anywhere. The only way the hassle of TSA will get better is with time to get the technology out there to screen passengers accordingly. With all things that the public does not like, TSA screening will become more and more of a regular thing with time.

January 22, 2009 12:09 AM

 
Anonymous OFFICER GIORDANO said...

You know I wish those of you that are complaining about your rights actually knew your rights. I have had ancestor after ancestor fighting for the rights that you have. What the heck have you done lately to defend your rights? Who cares that you have to show a "agent of the government" your id and boarding pass? Who cares that you have to remove your shoes or discard liquids over 3.4 ounces? I sure in the hell don't.

People like you are what put this country into the turmoil it's in now. Yes, I work for TSA. Do you think that TSA personel are exempt from going through security? What about Kip Hawley? EVERYBODY GETS CHECKED!!!

I was given the great pleasure of meeting with the great KIP HAWLEY and his other team members in November. This man has done wonderful things to improve TSA.

Kip I want to personally say THANK YOU and Best Wishes. Hopefully I will be able to meet with you once again during your travels.

January 22, 2009 8:00 AM

 
Blogger RB said...

On a positive note:

To Bob and other Blog Ops; I suspect it's a busy time around HQ right about now. I hope that the new TSA executive staff support the continuation of this Blog and a call for a real atmosphere of open discussion.

I truly believe that a great deal of good things can come from this forum, however I think TSA needs to reach out a bit more than has happened in the past months.

Should the new crew decided to shut this blog down I hope you can make a case for a last announcement and allow for final words from the readers.

January 22, 2009 10:05 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kip,

PASS did not work; See Feel Think Do will not work.

January 22, 2009 12:26 PM

 
Blogger RB said...

OFFICER GIORDANO said...
You know I wish those of you that are complaining about your rights actually knew your rights. I have had ancestor after ancestor fighting for the rights that you have. What the heck have you done lately to defend your rights? Who cares that you have to show a "agent of the government" your id and boarding pass? Who cares that you have to remove your shoes or discard liquids over 3.4 ounces? I sure in the hell don't.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Officer Giordano, I care!

You ask what I have done to defend the rights we speak about here. Your rights, mine and every other citizen of this country.

I will tell you what I have done to defend these rights sir; I spent 23 years in the military service of this country, doing things that many people could not stomach or tolerate.

My father was a United States Marine in the Pacific theater during WWII and was one of the lucky survivors. Later he was a Law Enforcement Officer and later yet worked for the Justice Department.

My mother worked for the United States Air Force in a civilian capacity and later for the Justice Department.

My brother spent serveral years in the Coast Guard in the late 60's, then entered Federal Service in the Justice Department also, and finally my sister was a Law Enforcement Officer for 30 years.

I think all of those careers gave something towards defending the rights of all citizens.

Now good sir, tell me just what it is you have done besides screen baggage?

January 22, 2009 9:20 PM

 
Blogger RB said...

George said...
RB, at the risk of topic drift, I honestly don't understand why you get your knickers in such a twist over the requirement to show your ID and boarding pass before entering a checkpoint.
....................
George, the simple answer is that this country has always had open internal borders where a citizen can travel about without interference from the govenment.

The act of being required to present ID and/or travel papers is the first step down the slope to having to prove who you are and why you are traveling. It is simply not the governments concern to who I am unless they have a warrant for my detention.

I have no issue with giving ID to the aircraft operator since I wish to contract with them to fly as a passenger on their aircraft.

January 22, 2009 9:28 PM

 
Anonymous Robert Johnson said...

Quote from Anonymous: "TSA is setup by law of congress."

I find it laughable that TSA can repeatedly quote law yet disregard it and the constitution when it suits its purposes.

"TSA is not going anywhere. The only way the hassle of TSA will get better is with time to get the technology out there to screen passengers accordingly. With all things that the public does not like, TSA screening will become more and more of a regular thing with time."

I wouldn't be so confident. If Obama makes good on his promise to evaluate government programs and eliminate ones that don't work, that cushy job you have at TSA may not be such a sure thing.

TSA can do a lot to remove the hassle now if it'd get rid of the "layers" (Kippie's favorite word) that don't work and/or are just fluff. A layer is only good if it works and actually does something useful.

Robert

January 22, 2009 10:07 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mister Giordano, we who criticize TSA are patriots and you who work for it are not. You are also our employee.

January 22, 2009 10:30 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BlognDog, Al Ames, and RB:
I'm wondering what damage is being done to the Constituion...
BlognDog asked " how it is EVERY other country in the world can keep its citizens safe without abusing their rights but you cannot." Ever consider that we Americans have Too many rights compared to other countries?
I personally would rather stand in a line and follow the rules, and know TSA is doing what's in their power to keep myself and my family safe, than just let Joe Shmoe, who absolute hates the United States, (like most other countries do), decide to take down a plane by whatever means he/she deam necessary.
Maybe everyone should think about this when they drop their parents or children off at the airport.
This country claimed WE WILL NEVER FORGET. It seems most Americans DID forget.

Leigh

January 22, 2009 11:06 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RB said...

"George, the simple answer is that this country has always had open internal borders where a citizen can travel about without interference from the govenment...
I have no issue with giving ID to the aircraft operator since I wish to contract with them to fly as a passenger on their aircraft."

We still have open travel within our borders. But unless you ask everyone for ID, how is one to know whether you are a citizen or not? If you are not a citizen in any other country, you need a passport, as do visitors to the United States.
You have no issue showing the airplane operator. But who is to say that a passenger that checks in at the ticket counter doesn't hand off his/her ticket to some illegal alien to travel because the checkpoint doesn't ensure it's the person who just picked up the ticket?
Not to mention, people check in at home don't come in contact with people from the airline until reaching the gate, unless checking a bag in.
I say it's time to get your panties out of that bunch and suck it up. It's for your own good.

Leigh

January 22, 2009 11:30 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

OFFICER GIORDANO said...
You know I wish those of you that are complaining about your rights actually knew your rights. I have had ancestor after ancestor fighting for the rights that you have. What the heck have you done lately to defend your rights? Who cares that you have to show a "agent of the government" your id and boarding pass? Who cares that you have to remove your shoes or discard liquids over 3.4 ounces? I sure in the hell don't.


I happen to know my rights but just out of curiosity why don't you explain the basic rights of Americans when they are at the security checkpoint at the airport.

You ask what have I done lately to defend my rights, if you are implying military service is the only way to fight for your rights, you are sadly mistaken.

The military has not fought for my rights since the War of Northern Aggression or you may know it as the Civil War even though that is a false name and definition.

The military fights to protect my freedoms. Citizens fight to protect rights.

As a citizen I fight on almost a daily basis to protect my right to travel freely without Government interference.

I fight on almost a daily basis to protect my right to be free of unwarranted and unreasonable searches.

I fight on almost a daily basis for my right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What have YOU done lately to fight for our rights?

January 23, 2009 12:00 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...
BlognDog, Al Ames, and RB:
I'm wondering what damage is being done to the Constituion...
BlognDog asked " how it is EVERY other country in the world can keep its citizens safe without abusing their rights but you cannot."

Ever consider that we Americans have Too many rights compared to other countries?

I personally would rather stand in a line and follow the rules, and know TSA is doing what's in their power to keep myself and my family safe, than just let Joe Shmoe, who absolute hates the United States, (like most other countries do), decide to take down a plane by whatever means he/she deam necessary.

Maybe everyone should think about this when they drop their parents or children off at the airport.
This country claimed WE WILL NEVER FORGET. It seems most Americans DID forget.


Most Americans did not forget and some Americans like me accept that we will never be free of danger.

Because we know we will never be free of danger we are not willing to give up ANY right on the false hope of being completely secure.

I would rather 3000 people die a year in terror related attacks than to give up a SINGLE right.

January 23, 2009 12:13 AM

 
Anonymous halı yıkama makinaları said...

If everyone is supposed to know it's 3.4 oz, why use the 3 oz everywhere official?

January 23, 2009 3:24 AM

 
Anonymous OFFICER GIORDANO said...

For those of you that wish to bash me in your comments, here is my response:

I never said that the military is the only one that is protecting your rights. The military DOES help to protect your rights. The majority of people fight for their rights. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? I ask you again.

What have I done besides screening baggage, you ask? Well let me tell you. I have screened passengers as well. I have checked passengers identification. I have the pleasure of knowing that I did my job to make sure YOUR safe on YOUR flight. I have been apart of apprehending Drunk Drivers. I am working on creating a better checkpoint for YOU. I have helped keep firearms off of flights like yours. I am an active participant to keep my neighborhood safe. I help out my community by donating items and my services. You sir have spent almost more time in the military than I have been living. I want you to know sir that I was raised to be very Patriotic and I am extremely Patriotic. I am proud to say that my family has had a large part in defending this country.

My father was a Marine in the Vietnam War. He then returned home to join the police department. He is now a board member of F.O.P. (Fraternal Order of Police). I have had a family member in every war, conflict, and/or battle that this country has had.

For the Einstein that says that we are not Patriots, are you serious? Patriots step up to the plate and help defend their country. Those of you that want to criticize TSA are not acting like Patriots. By the way I am not YOUR employee, I am a government employee. You sir did not hire me, the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY did.

I'm glad to hear that there are some of you that enjoy the fact that anybody WAS able to come into this country illegaly. The reason we have the protection that we do is becasue of previous issues. I suppose you like the guy next to you on the plane that is wanted for kidnapping and murder. The drug smuggler that is smuggling 20 kilos of cocaine to try and sell to one of your family members.

The fact is: We as Americans have to make sacrifices everyday to make sure that we stay safe.

I'd like to reiterate what Leigh posted. This country claimed WE WILL NEVER FORGET. It seems most Americans DID forget. I couldn't agree with you more. Alot of Americans have forgotten or became complacent about it.

If you don't like the fact that you have to remove your shoes or discard liquids over 3.4 ounces or the fact that you have to show your id and boarding pass to an "agent of the government", THEN DON'T FLY. Let me let you in on something, here's what my TSA stands for you: There's Still Amtrak. If you don't like that either than you can always drive to your destination.

Oh no that won't work either huh? The police officer might violate your rights when you get pulled over.

The bottom line is you at least have options for your travels. So pick the one that works best for you.

By the way PASS does work! SEE FEEL THINK DO also works!

So I hope one day that we can all agree that TSA and the rest of DHS are doing a great job at protecting the public.

Other than that I'll have to agree to disagree with some of you.

January 23, 2009 4:15 AM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

Trollkiller said:
"I would rather 3000 people die a year in terror related attacks than to give up a SINGLE right."

Isn't 3000 about the same as the number of deaths from smoking in the US- every 60 hours? 440,000 each year.

The cynic in me contemplates that if terrorists had lobyists in Washington, terrorism would somehow be legal....

January 23, 2009 10:02 AM

 
Blogger RB said...

OFFICER GIORDANO said...

The fact is: We as Americans have to make sacrifices everyday to make sure that we stay safe.

We do not have to sacrifice Constitutional Protections. To do so is not an act of a Patriot.

If you don't like the fact that you have to remove your shoes or discard liquids over 3.4 ounces or the fact that you have to show your id and boarding pass to an "agent of the government", THEN DON'T FLY. Let me let you in on something, here's what my TSA stands for you: There's Still Amtrak. If you don't like that either than you can always drive to your destination.

The bottom line is you at least have options for your travels. So pick the one that works best for you.

Those are not always viable options. Tell me how I can take Amtrak to Hawaii from Los Angles? Regardless, TSA is moving to control all forms of public transportation so what will my options be then?

So I hope one day that we can all agree that TSA and the rest of DHS are doing a great job at protecting the public.

I don't think we will agree on the above statement in my lifetime. There is "zero" proof that what TSA is doing has added anything to "protecting the public".

As far as your definition of "TSA: There's Still Amtrak" displays your total lack of objectivity. I think it would be more accurate as "Terrorist Support Agency"!

Now I could be wrong but your couple of post on this blog makes me think your a "wet behind the ears" poorly educated person who is unable to find other productive employment. I'll give you the opportunity to prove otherwise.

January 23, 2009 10:35 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will tell you what I have done to defend these rights sir; I spent 23 years in the military service of this country, doing things that many people could not stomach or tolerate.


So you're saying you were a cook?

January 23, 2009 11:37 AM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

"Officer" Giordano, you need to get over yourself.

January 23, 2009 12:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Intersting how Mister Giordano continues to post nothing but bluster and false bravado, while posting nothing that could be remotely considered a fact. The fact is that checking IDs does nothing to make flights safer. The fact is that liquids do not pose any threat to air travel. The fact is that shoes do not pose any threat to air travel. Heck, even Kip Hawley has said that people who show up at airports with firearms are disturbed, not genuine threats to air travel.

Learn your facts, Mister Giordano.

January 23, 2009 12:38 PM

 
Anonymous George said...

@Officer Giordano: So I hope one day that we can all agree that TSA and the rest of DHS are doing a great job at protecting the public.

I hope so too. But that day won't arrive until the TSA and the rest of DHS can honestly convince the public that what they do actually protects them and isn't just gratuitous, costly, intrusive, inconvenient, and sometimes even humiliating "Security Theater." Repeatedly insisting that "Yes it does, but we can't tell you anything more than that because it's classified for National Security reasons" won't do that. Nor will responding to all honestly-offered questions and criticism with "Remember 9/11! Be afraid and terrified!" Until you earn the public's confidence and trust, the public will be skeptical and resentful of what they perceive (correctly or otherwise) as undue and arbitrary intrusions on rights and the loss of liberties.

In short, when the TSA and the rest of the DHS treat the public like "active, positive participants" rather than as enemy threats, and stop hiding their inadequacies behind a smothering shroud of secrecy, the public will rally right behind them, respect them, and even be grateful for what they do. That's all we ask, but the TSA and the rest of the DHS have so far made that all but impossible.

In the words of President Obama, "[W]e reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake." I hope Janet Napolitano was listening carefully.

January 23, 2009 1:41 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quote:
"I would rather 3000 people die a year in terror related attacks than to give up a SINGLE right."

I'm sure those 3000 people would have something different to say about that!

January 23, 2009 3:59 PM

 
Blogger RB said...

We still have open travel within our borders. But unless you ask everyone for ID, how is one to know whether you are a citizen or not? If you are not a citizen in any other country, you need a passport, as do visitors to the United States.
You have no issue showing the airplane operator. But who is to say that a passenger that checks in at the ticket counter doesn't hand off his/her ticket to some illegal alien to travel because the checkpoint doesn't ensure it's the person who just picked up the ticket?
Not to mention, people check in at home don't come in contact with people from the airline until reaching the gate, unless checking a bag in.
I say it's time to get your panties out of that bunch and suck it up. It's for your own good.

Leigh

January 22, 2009 11:30 PM

.........................
If the people are properly screened for weapons why would it matter who they are?

January 23, 2009 4:21 PM

 
Blogger RB said...

So you're saying you were a cook?

January 23, 2009 11:37 AM

There were times that I did some cooking. I get hungry just like most other people.

How do you handle the need for food without cooking?

January 23, 2009 4:22 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Quote:
"I would rather 3000 people die a year in terror related attacks than to give up a SINGLE right."

I'm sure those 3000 people would have something different to say about that!

January 23, 2009 3:59 PM
_____________

Are you forgetting Patrick hentry's "Give me liberty or give me death" speech?

January 23, 2009 4:34 PM

 
Anonymous Earl Pitts said...

Leigh:

Bottom line: I don't need a government nanny trying to nerf everything and protect me for my own good because Big Brother knows best. I'm a big boy. I accept the risks in life and accept that I can never be 100% safe. It's what responsible adults do.

If you want to live in a place where the government is constantly looking out for you "for your own good", may I suggest taking a look at North Korea? There's virtually no crime and the people are very safe ... except from the government. Kim Jong Il knows what's best and he looks out for his people.

Of course, you see how well that's really working out for the North Koreans ...

I didn't forget 9/11. I don't use them as an excuse for the government to finish the terrorists' jobs of destroying our freedoms though either.

Earl

January 23, 2009 6:43 PM

 
Blogger Irish said...

Leigh said . . .

"Ever consider that we Americans have Too many rights compared to other countries?"

No. I've never considered that. It's that mindset that is part of the problem, and I don't want to be part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution. Standing in line and mindlessly following directions is not part of the solution. Abrogating my rights and responsibilities as a citizen is not part of the solution.


"I say it's time to get your panties out of that bunch and suck it up. It's for your own good."

I am an adult woman, Leigh. I've got a crisp new $20 bill that says I've probably got children older than you are and grandchildren nearly as old. It is neither to you nor to the agency for which you work nor to Nanny Government to tell me what is in my best interest. This is where the "responsibility" part of "rights and responsibilities" comes in. I make those decisions on my own, as I have for decades. It's part of being an adult in a free society.

Irish

January 24, 2009 3:31 AM

 
Anonymous OFFICER GIORDANO said...

You know I came into this site to wish Mr. Kip Hawley best of luck.

As soon as I started reading some of your statements, I became one of you with discouragement.

RB to be honest, I could probably do a better job than you do at your employer. I have excelled at every job that I have had. I LOVE WORKING FOR TSA.

For those of you that think it's so much better being in other countries, then pack your junk and move there.

Leigh once again I agree with your last statement. People need to QUIT complaining about showing your id. What is the big issue showing your id anyway? Are you afraid that we're going to see how old you are? How heavy you are? What your middle name is? What your eye color is? Seriously who cares and why? Are you travelling with ill-intent? It's not like we're memorizing YOUR id. We check the name and the picture.

Let me ask you "Patriots" how would you like to run the checkpoint? There now YOU are in charge of TSA and can make any changes you can, what do you do?
I would like to hear some of your answers.

Look I'm not full of myself, I'm full of TSA. I have had to go through the issues of TSA when it was new and now I am darn pround of the direction that we are going.

Liquids are not dangerous huh? Shoes either? I guess you forgot about Richard Reid? The liquids plot from England?

I can personally tell you that there are items being found everyday. Unfortuanately I can't tell you what we find specifically. If I could, I'm sure alot of you would sing a different tune.

Do you think that the only terrorist are those that live overseas? Don't forget the one's that are born and raised here in the US.

We have alot of freedoms & rights and there are people all over the world that hate us for those freedoms & rights.

Last question for you guys; Have you seen the show HOMELAND SECURITY USA?

January 24, 2009 4:15 AM

 
Blogger Irish said...

OFFICER GIORDANO said...

"For those of you that wish to bash me in your comments, here is my response: . . . .

"What have I done besides screening baggage, you ask?
"Well let me tell you. I have screened passengers as well.
"I have checked passengers identification. . . . ."
[snipped]
"I have been apart of apprehending Drunk Drivers.
"I am working on creating a better checkpoint for YOU.
"I have helped keep firearms off of flights like yours.
"I am an active participant to keep my neighborhood safe.
"I help out my community by donating items and my services."

With respect, Officer Giordano, none of these things helps protect my rights. Most of them don't even help protect my safety. While I honor and appreciate the military service of your family members, that isn't something YOU did, and it's a fallacy to attempt to claim it as something you've done to "protect my rights".



"For the Einstein that says that we are not Patriots, are you serious? Patriots step up to the plate and help defend their country."

A patriot is one who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion. I'm very sure you love and support your country devotedly.


"Those of you that want to criticize TSA are not acting like Patriots."

Indeed they are, Officer Giordano. Patriotism isn't about "my country right or wrong". It's about "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right". That's an important distinction.


"By the way I am not YOUR employee, I am a government employee. You sir did not hire me, the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY did."

Wrong, sir. You, sir, you ARE my employee, regardless who hired you and regardless who signs your paycheck. Just as **I** am the employee of the citizens I serve. There's a fundamental flaw in any government agency that fails to adquately educate its workforce to that simple fact.


"I suppose you like the guy next to you on the plane that is wanted for kidnapping and murder. The drug smuggler that is smuggling 20 kilos of cocaine to try and sell to one of your family members."

Keeping me safe from kidnappers and drug smugglers is NOT YOUR JOB. It may be one of your responsibilities as a good citizen, but it is NOT YOUR JOB.


"The fact is: We as Americans have to make sacrifices everyday to make sure that we stay safe."

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


"I'd like to reiterate what Leigh posted. This country claimed WE WILL NEVER FORGET. It seems most Americans DID forget. I couldn't agree with you more. Alot of Americans have forgotten or became complacent about it."

No, I haven't forgotten. Not 9/11. Not Benjamin Franklin. Not Thomas Jefferson. Not Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, Jr. (Look him up -- HE was a patriot, in the highest sense of the word.)

If I were complacent, Officer Giordano, I wouldn't be arguing with you -- I would be meekly submitting to all this.


"If you don't like the fact that you have to remove your shoes or discard liquids over 3.4 ounces or the fact that you have to show your id and boarding pass to an 'agent of the government', THEN DON'T FLY."

I DON'T fly anymore, if at all humanly possible. But I haven't abrogated my responsibility to "set it right".


"So I hope one day that we can all agree that TSA and the rest of DHS are doing a great job at protecting the public."

I hope so, too. One day. But not This Day.


Irish

January 24, 2009 4:29 AM

 
Blogger Irish said...

Leigh asks . . . .

"We still have open travel within our borders. But unless you ask everyone for ID, how is one to know whether you are a citizen or not? If you are not a citizen in any other country, you need a passport, as do visitors to the United States."

Tsk, tsk, Leigh. Non-US-citizens need a passport to ENTER THE US. Border security is not your job -- that'd be US Customs and Border Protection, not TSA. Once legally admitted to the US, no passport is needed to travel freely within the US.

US citizens need a passport to enter other countries. Once admitted to a FREE country, a passport is not needed to travel within the country. My passport was checked at Orly when I entered France, but never checked when I went from Paris to Avignon.

Irish

January 24, 2009 4:52 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have been with TSA for 6 1/2 years, I began my career the first year we began due to the events of 911. I was 49 years old and realized I had never given back to my country. I am a child of the Viet Nam era but back then females were not sent off to war. So in 2002 I decided to do my "patriotic duty" as the 9th great grandaughter of Patrick Henry, I too wanted to give back and joined TSA. Fot those of you who do not like taking off your shoes, not taking liquids into the sterile area, showing your ID's do you honestly think the families of the 911 victims would have minded if their loved ones had those who murdered them would have had to have done the same. And really what rights exactly have been taken from you please let me know because I see no where in any government document where it states the right to wear shoes though a metal detector, the right to have liquids in the sterile are, the right to not show ID to a federal officer for verivication purposes. During the past 6 years TSA has gone through alot of changes, some good some not as good, but they are not changes for us they are changes for those we are trying to protect. Everyday we come to work knowing that some passengers dislike us, some hate us, some are rude however 80% are wonderful, people who appreciate that when we come to work. They understand there could be a weapon, an explosive device, or some nut driving his/her car into the airport to disrupt yours and our lives. Do all of the TSA employees agree with all the rules no but we will honor those rules and fulfill our job as we swore to do. Instead of blaming Kip and TSA why don't you help by not attacking people who have a job to do who are trying to prevent another 3000 people from dying. Give some constructive feedback, asssit your community in making it safer, come to work for TSA and help make us better with your experience and knowledge. We truly want to make a difference, and yes we have taken your water and cosmetics but we have also taken thousand of illegal weapons ( no not scissors) but handguns, rifles, illegal knives, kubatons etc. and each day when we do so we are risking our lives to make your plane a bit safer. Would you really want to fly on a plane where anything and anyone could be on there? I do not, I sleep better at night knowing if my friends or family are on a plane that that plane had it's passengers and baggage screened. Please try and relaize we are not doing this TO you we are doing it FOR you.

* And to Trollkiller how dare you even think that the murder of 3000 people is even remotley equal to any right you may have to give up, would you really have your mother, father, sister or brother die just for your shoes?

January 24, 2009 11:25 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

OFFICER GIORDANO said...

For those of you that wish to bash me in your comments, here is my response:

I never said that the military is the only one that is protecting your rights. The military DOES help to protect your rights. The majority of people fight for their rights. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? I ask you again.


What you said was "I have had ancestor after ancestor fighting for the rights that you have. What the heck have you done lately to defend your rights?"

Please do not use the Troll tactic of claiming you wrote something different than what you really wrote.

I will agree the military protects the country so that I can fight for my rights without being hampered by a foreign force.

I am sorry I thought you had been lurking during my numerous posts on what I have done lately to fight for my rights.

I have filed complaints with the DHS OIG about TSA sanctioned illegal practices, I have contacted and conversed with both Kip Hawley and Francine Kerner about the TSA sanctioned illegal practices, I have contacted my Congressman about TSA sanctioned illegal practices, I have filed FOIA requests with the TSA in an attempt to gather evidence about the illegal practices sanctioned by the TSA, and I post tirelessly on this and other forums to bring these issues to the forefront to keep people like you honest.

What have I done besides screening baggage, you ask? Well let me tell you. I have screened passengers as well. I have checked passengers identification. I have the pleasure of knowing that I did my job to make sure YOUR safe on YOUR flight. I have been apart of apprehending Drunk Drivers. I am working on creating a better checkpoint for YOU. I have helped keep firearms off of flights like yours. I am an active participant to keep my neighborhood safe. I help out my community by donating items and my services. You sir have spent almost more time in the military than I have been living. I want you to know sir that I was raised to be very Patriotic and I am extremely Patriotic. I am proud to say that my family has had a large part in defending this country.

I did not ask that, what I said was "I happen to know my rights but just out of curiosity why don't you explain the basic rights of Americans when they are at the security checkpoint at the airport."

Please explain the basic rights of Americans when they are at the security checkpoint at the airport. This should be an easy answer for you after all you said "You know I wish those of you that are complaining about your rights actually knew your rights." thereby implying you know what rights we have.

My father was a Marine in the Vietnam War. He then returned home to join the police department. He is now a board member of F.O.P. (Fraternal Order of Police). I have had a family member in every war, conflict, and/or battle that this country has had.

Lieutenant Dan, Lieutenant Dan, ice cream.

For the Einstein that says that we are not Patriots, are you serious? Patriots step up to the plate and help defend their country. Those of you that want to criticize TSA are not acting like Patriots.

Keep up statements like that and I will start assuming you are a Troll.

A Patriot defends the Constitution and the ideals that founded this country. If you are actively and knowingly violating the law and/or the Constitution under the color of law or by authority or pretend authority, you are not a Patriot but a traitor.

By the way I am not YOUR employee, I am a government employee. You sir did not hire me, the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY did.

The Government is by the people of the people and for the people. In other words I OWN it. You work for ME and every other citizen of this country. You work for me and if you keep this up you will continue to get a bad review from me.

I'm glad to hear that there are some of you that enjoy the fact that anybody WAS able to come into this country illegaly. The reason we have the protection that we do is becasue of previous issues. I suppose you like the guy next to you on the plane that is wanted for kidnapping and murder. The drug smuggler that is smuggling 20 kilos of cocaine to try and sell to one of your family members.

Someone wanted for a crime is NOT your concern. Someone smuggling coke is ONLY your concern if you find it while conducting a legal search for weapons, explosives and incendiaries.

The fact is: We as Americans have to make sacrifices everyday to make sure that we stay safe.

Sorry my rights are not up for sacrifice.

I'd like to reiterate what Leigh posted. This country claimed WE WILL NEVER FORGET. It seems most Americans DID forget. I couldn't agree with you more. Alot of Americans have forgotten or became complacent about it.

We have not forgotten 9/11/2001 nor have we forgotten 6/21/1788 and we will not allow the events of 9/11/2001 undo the events of 6/21/1788.

If you don't like the fact that you have to remove your shoes or discard liquids over 3.4 ounces or the fact that you have to show your id and boarding pass to an "agent of the government", THEN DON'T FLY.

How about this, if we the people don't like throwing away liquids then get the technology that you can use to do your job.

On the illegal forced ID verification you are subjecting citizens to, STOP BREAKING THE LAW.

Let me let you in on something, here's what my TSA stands for you: There's Still Amtrak. If you don't like that either than you can always drive to your destination.


I can't say what TSA stands for because it won't fit the posting guidelines on vulgar speech.

Please let me know when you have a car available that I can use to drive to Hawaii.

The right to travel the length and breadth of this country is NOT a privilege. In fact that right pre-dates the Constitution.

Oh no that won't work either huh? The police officer might violate your rights when you get pulled over.


They may but at least they can be held accountable.

The bottom line is you at least have options for your travels. So pick the one that works best for you.


The bottom line is the TSA needs to work within the law and within the Constitutional bounds.

By the way PASS does work! SEE FEEL THINK DO also works!

So I hope one day that we can all agree that TSA and the rest of DHS are doing a great job at protecting the public.


One day that will come, until then expect me and other patriots to be in your face. We will not back down, we will not waiver.

I refuse to have my children grow up in the world you envision. My children will grow up free with ALL of their rights intact even if it takes my blood to see to it.

January 25, 2009 4:50 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Dunstan said...
Isn't 3000 about the same as the number of deaths from smoking in the US- every 60 hours? 440,000 each year.

The cynic in me contemplates that if terrorists had lobbyists in Washington, terrorism would somehow be legal....


Would you tax it on the attack or the attempt?

January 25, 2009 4:54 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

RB said...

So you're saying you were a cook?

January 23, 2009 11:37 AM

There were times that I did some cooking. I get hungry just like most other people.

How do you handle the need for food without cooking?


It was an army food joke. It took me a couple of reads to catch it.

January 25, 2009 5:05 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...
I would rather 3000 people die a year in terror related attacks than to give up a SINGLE right.

Even if it were your family, friends or yourself added in the equation? I would hope not.

January 25, 2009 3:05 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Did my last couple of post get censored? If so why?

January 25, 2009 5:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's hard to reconcile the "we're not stupid! there are secret threats we can't tell you about" with your temporary bans that added nothing but inconvenience, on things like tweezers and matches.
There's no secret there, it's merely acting like you're doing something useful when you're not.

Perhaps with the departure of the administration of incompetence as of a few days ago, perhaps we will actually have some common sense available again. Perhaps...

January 25, 2009 6:01 PM

 
Anonymous TSO Tony said...

Earl Pitts said ....

Bottom line: I don't need a government nanny trying to nerf everything and protect me for my own good because Big Brother knows best. I'm a big boy. I accept the risks in life and accept that I can never be 100% safe. It's what responsible adults do.

---

Earl,

THe problem with that statement is that while you may accept those risks, the other 199 people on your flight might not.

I'll be the first to agree, looking from the inside out, that TSA needs to lose the touchy-feely feel-good "customer service"-type nonsense, and lose as much of the security-theater nonsense as possible, and get very good at doing things that actually stop guns, bombs, and terrorists from getting on airplanes. And to do it while preserving passengers' civil liberties and property.

It can be done.

January 26, 2009 12:56 AM

 
Blogger RB said...

Anonymous said...
I have been with TSA for 6 1/2 years, I began my career the first year we began due to the events of 911.

Fot those of you who do not like taking off your shoes, not taking liquids into the sterile area, showing your ID's do you honestly think the families of the 911 victims would have minded if their loved ones had those who murdered them would have had to have done the same.
.....................
Anon, please tell me how the taking off of shoes, confiscation of liquids and showing ID would have stopped the events that happened on September 11, 2001.

January 26, 2009 10:55 AM

 
Blogger RB said...

OFFICER GIORDANO said...

RB to be honest, I could probably do a better job than you do at your employer. I have excelled at every job that I have had. I LOVE WORKING FOR TSA.

.............................
I like a challenge!!

Post your full name, address and other contact information so I can get an application out to you.

You certainly don't belong in public service.

January 26, 2009 10:59 AM

 
Anonymous George said...

Officer Giordano: Look I'm not full of myself, I'm full of TSA.

I'm surprised the moderators allowed your comment. It inappropriately implies that the TSA is synonymous with something we had best not step in before putting our shoes through the x-ray machine!

All kidding aside, I'm glad you love working for the TSA. It's refreshingly rare to hear anyone these days honestly say that they love their job. But if the statements you've made here are representative of what TSOs actually believe, then you have inadvertently provided insight into why the TSA has such severe public relations problems.

Contrary to what you assert, patriotism is not meek unquestioning acceptance of everything our Leaders say and do. And it is not meek unquestioning submission to any "officer" wearing an itchy uniform and a badge who bellows orders and "interprets" secret rules to confiscate our property. That's the definition the Bush administration insisted on, and it's surely how Kim Jong-Il defines whatever is the North Korean word for "patriotism." But it's not an American definition of the word.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, many if not most of us who complain about the TSA are truly patriotic in the classic American sense. We are thus skeptical about the "security" value of what we observe at airport checkpoints. Much of it looks ridiculous and arbitrary, so we question whether it's an appropriate use of our time and our tax dollars. That is our right as Americans, whether you like it or not. And it's also our patriotic duty to demand accountability from our government, because we love our country and want our government to be effective at keeping us safe, strong, and free.

That's why we get appalled and even more skeptical when you and your bosses respond to our questions and criticism by insisting that "If you knew what we know and saw what we see, you'd agree that all the stuff about shoes and liquids is all necessary and effective. But that all has to be classified or SSI to avoid aiding the enemy. You'll just have to trust us, obey us unquestioningly, and not complain about it. We urge you to think constantly about 9/11 and be afraid!" You may consider that "patriotic," but a lot of us do not. Rather, it's full of TSA.

The Bush administration seemed to believe that "freedoms & rights" make us dangerously vulnerable to terrorism, so they have to be curtailed or eliminated at the sole discretion of the Executive Branch. And that belief is too often reflected in the way TSA operates and interacts with the public.

The truth is that our unique freedoms and rights are the source of America's strength! A true patriot recognizes this, and does everything he or she can to preserve those liberties from people (with and without uniforms) who want to take it away. Attempting to stifle or restrict or liberties in the name of "protecting America" only weakens America, and aids enemies that (as you note) "hate us for those freedoms & rights."

President Obama has told us that he is committed to freedoms, rights, and the rule of law, and that "we will not give them up for expedience's sake." I hope this new approach will get flowed down properly to the TSA, and that its agents will receive the proper training to embrace and implement it. If that actually happens, there is a good chance that the TSA will become a respected and effective agency rather than a costly "pain point."

January 26, 2009 11:48 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"People need to QUIT complaining about showing your id. What is the big issue showing your id anyway? Are you afraid that we're going to see how old you are? How heavy you are? What your middle name is? What your eye color is? Seriously who cares and why?"

The issue is that identity has nothing to do with security, and creates a tiresome obstacle to boarding as TSA spends 60-90 seconds staring at each passenger's ID. Things that do not enhance security should be dropped from the screening process.

"Are you travelling with ill-intent? It's not like we're memorizing YOUR id. We check the name and the picture."

ID has no relation to intent. "Checking" the name and picture does nothing to make anyone safer.

"Let me ask you "Patriots" how would you like to run the checkpoint? There now YOU are in charge of TSA and can make any changes you can, what do you do?"

Drop ID checks, drop the liquids ban, drop the shoe carnival.

"Liquids are not dangerous huh? Shoes either? I guess you forgot about Richard Reid? The liquids plot from England?"

Richard Reid was a) unsuccessful and b) years ago. No one is trying to blow up a plane with their shoes. One idiot doing something idiotic six or seven years ago is no reason to force every passenger to remove their shoes.

As for liquids, TSA has repeatedly been asked to share one piece of independent research to support its liquid restrictions. It cannot do so, because it is impossible to cause harm to an airliner with liquids you can carry onto a plane. The London would-be bombers did not have any working liquid explosive -- indeed, they did not even have passports or tickets. TSA's current policies are scientifically indefensible, do nothing to enhance security, and do much to harm it.

"I can personally tell you that there are items being found everyday. Unfortuanately I can't tell you what we find specifically. If I could, I'm sure alot of you would sing a different tune."

I call BS.

"Do you think that the only terrorist are those that live overseas? Don't forget the one's that are born and raised here in the US."

And how many has TSA caught in all the years of its existence? What's that you say?

Oh, right.

Zero.

January 26, 2009 12:22 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TSO Tony "I'll be the first to agree, looking from the inside out, that TSA needs to lose the touchy-feely feel-good "customer service"-type nonsense, and lose as much of the security-theater nonsense as possible, and get very good at doing things that actually stop guns, bombs, and terrorists from getting on airplanes. And to do it while preserving passengers' civil liberties and property.

It can be done."

#################

But it isn't being done, as long as TSA keeps touting doing the touchy-feely security theatre stuff as real security.

Could we increase security (reduce the 40,000 transportation deaths per year) by spending the $6B per year in some other way?

January 26, 2009 2:57 PM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

Trollkiller said...

Dunstan said...
Isn't 3000 about the same as the number of deaths from smoking in the US- every 60 hours? 440,000 each year.

The cynic in me contemplates that if terrorists had lobbyists in Washington, terrorism would somehow be legal....

TK replied:

"Would you tax it on the attack or the attempt?"

I hadn't thought about the tax implications, TK. Whatever the way we service the debt, society pays for it.

January 26, 2009 4:12 PM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

Officer Giordano writes:
What have I done besides screening baggage, you ask? Well let me tell you. I have screened passengers as well. I have checked passengers identification.

How does that secure our right to be free of warrantless searches?

For the Einstein that says that we are not Patriots, are you serious?

Yes. Patriots prefer the constitution to the TSA.

By the way I am not YOUR employee, I am a government employee.

Have you ever heard of "government of the people, by the people, and from the people"? From whence does the government get the authority to hire you in the first place?

The fact is: We as Americans have to make sacrifices everyday to make sure that we stay safe.

I'd rather be free than safe.

It seems most Americans DID forget.

Actually, most of us learned the lessons of 9/12/2001. Note the date isn't 9/11 but is 9/12. You need to learn the lessons of 9/12/2001.

So I hope one day that we can all agree that TSA and the rest of DHS are doing a great job at protecting the public.

When they remember that the 4th amendment exists (and also the 1st, and the 5th, and the 6th) then I will agree they are doing a better job.

For those of you that think it's so much better being in other countries, then pack your junk and move there.

I'd prefer to be in what the USA should be instead of what the TSA is turning it into. Can you help me pack up and move to the USA as described by the constitution and Bill of Rights?

What is the big issue showing your id anyway?

That you don't have the right to ask for it in the first place.

Liquids are not dangerous huh? Shoes either? I guess you forgot about Richard Reid? The liquids plot from England?

Actually we have heard of those. That's part of the problem. Especially with the liquids plot which was unworkable. Really, you need to research your examples. The liquid explosive idea has no basis in science.

The shoe bomber, by the way, was unable to light his shoes and was stopped by other passengers.

Officer Giordano, do you want to know what I've personally done? Yes, I'm a veteran. I even have campaign medals and I honestly didn't do a thing then to protect anybody's rights or liberties. After I left the military I joined the Libertarian Party, the GOA, and the ACLU. What have YOU done to protect anybody's rights?

January 26, 2009 4:45 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...
Did my last couple of post get censored? If so why?

Did you have more links to your web pages "that promote services or products" thus violating blog policy again?

January 26, 2009 7:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry. I seem to be in the wrong place.

I was trying to find Kip's last post.

Instead, I seem to have found the page for the OFFICER GIORDANO flame wars.

January 26, 2009 7:58 PM

 
Anonymous Earl Pitts said...

@TSO Tony: "Earl,

THe problem with that statement is that while you may accept those risks, the other 199 people on your flight might not."

Tony,

That's a pretty big problem. If people aren't willing to accept the risks of living in a free society, they probably don't deserve it. And seeing how freedom is being eroded in this country, it's becoming clear that we've been moving down that road over the last several years.

They put themselves at much greater risk just going to the airport than actually getting on the plane. It still baffles me that people will speed, drive agressively and so forth and then become pansies at the airport.

Yes a plane went down in a terrorist action nearly 8 years ago. Living in the Baltimore/Washignton area, it's pretty much impossible that I'll go a week without seeing at least 1 wreck during my commutes - some of them bad enough to cause severe injuries if not death. It baffles me that people will say "remember 9/11" yet you don't see people checking their driving habits with the "remember I-95".

Maybe it's the sense of control thing - people feel like they're in control if they're driving (though if you're a passenger, that doesn't happen). Of course, I can control what I do, but I can't control the idiots around me. :)

Bottom line: if they're willing to assume the risk getting to the airport, they should assume the risks of getting on the plane. Of course, screening is needed, but it needs to be reasonable, as brought up in your next point:

"I'll be the first to agree, looking from the inside out, that TSA needs to lose the touchy-feely feel-good "customer service"-type nonsense, and lose as much of the security-theater nonsense as possible, and get very good at doing things that actually stop guns, bombs, and terrorists from getting on airplanes. And to do it while preserving passengers' civil liberties and property.

It can be done."

I agree.

Yes, it can. The basics were already in place on 9/10/01. Every addition to TSA and every bit of mission creep has detracted from that until we got the mess we have now. It really scares me to see where it'll go if it doesn't stop.

It can be done, but the pessimist in me sees it only getting worse unless there's real leadership and a huge mindset change within TSA and DHS management.

Earl

January 26, 2009 9:29 PM

 
Blogger Gunner said...

Kip:


I am not going to join the auld lang sine club here. I think that the TSA under your leadership has turned into something that is a major threat to our liberty.

This is one million mile plus traveler who refuses to fly because of the TSA.

Still, I think that history will be reasonably kind to you -- especially after the latest political appointee, the former Governor of Arizona, runs DHS for the next few years.

January 26, 2009 11:38 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...
(edited for brevity & typos, please read Anonymous' full post)

So in 2002 I decided to do my "patriotic duty" as the 9th great granddaughter of Patrick Henry, I too wanted to give back and joined TSA.


Impressive you are related to important man in history. It is ironic that you chose the path you did.

For those of you who do not like taking off your shoes, not taking liquids into the sterile area, showing your ID's do you honestly think the families of the 911 victims would have minded if their loved ones had those who murdered them would have had to have done the same.

They complied with the security of the day and still died. Showing ID, x-raying shoes or any other the other TSA added security, would not have stopped the 9/11 attacks because the security experts believed that cooperating with a hijacker was the safe bet. They were wrong that time and people died. The rules have changed the out come would now be different.

And really what rights exactly have been taken from you please let me know because I see no where in any government document where it states the right to wear shoes though a metal detector, the right to have liquids in the sterile are, the right to not show ID to a federal officer for verification purposes.

Would the law fit your definition of a government document? This is a link to my blog, I have links to the various laws preventing a forced ID verification. Please take a look.

Do all of the TSA employees agree with all the rules no but we will honor those rules and fulfill our job as we swore to do.

The job you are SWORN to do is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. At that you are failing miserably. If I am correct this is the oath you took. Please take the time to review what you swore to do.

"I, 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

If your duties conflict with the Constitution or the laws it governs, you must by oath follow the Constitution.

Instead of blaming Kip and TSA why don't you help by not attacking people who have a job to do who are trying to prevent another 3000 people from dying.

Kip took that job of his own free will. As the top dog at the TSA he gets the darts as well as the laurels. If Kip, or anyone under Kip, makes a mistake it is Kip by his position that catches the heat. That is the nature of the beast.

Give some constructive feedback, assist your community in making it safer,

How many pieces of constructive feedback do you need? We have corrected the TSA on the illegal forced ID verification, we have explained how to secure luggage from molestation, we have pointed out gaping holes in security, and we have given countless ways to improve security without violating law or rights.

come to work for TSA and help make us better with your experience and knowledge.

No can do as I take my oaths seriously. I can not knowingly violate the law or the Constitution because I am HONORING rules.

Please try and realize we are not doing this TO you we are doing it FOR you.


If you are breaking the law and dishonoring the Constitution you are definitely doing it TO us, not for us.

* And to Trollkiller how dare you even think that the murder of 3000 people is even remotely equal to any right you may have to give up, would you really have your mother, father, sister or brother die just for your shoes?

I will answer this in another post because it is so rich it deserves a separate post.

January 27, 2009 4:34 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

I have been with TSA for 6 1/2 years, I began my career the first year we began due to the events of 911. I was 49 years old and realized I had never given back to my country. I am a child of the Viet Nam era but back then females were not sent off to war.

So in 2002 I decided to do my "patriotic duty" as the 9th great granddaughter of Patrick Henry,

-snip-

And to Trollkiller how dare you even think that the murder of 3000 people is even remotley equal to any right you may have to give up, would you really have your mother, father, sister or brother die just for your shoes?


"Give me liberty or give me death" is the most famous line from that speech given by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775. We all know it from grade school but you as a self proclaimed descendant of this patriot should know some of the other words given in that speech.

"For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings."

As Patrick Henry I can not be silent when the government is doing wrong. I will not be guilty of treason.

"it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."

The siren song of hope you listen to is the TSA would never do anything against the law or Constitution. I have eyes that see and ears that hear. I am not interested in temporal salvation at the cost of my freedom.

"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past"

The past experience of the TSA is the only way I have of judging the future. Past and current violations of the law and Constitution by the TSA give me no hope that the future will be without those things without a forced change of the TSA.

"Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land."

We have been betrayed by a kiss, the kiss of security at the cost of liberty. The TSA by its actions have made warlike preparations against the freedoms and rights of Americans.

"Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it?"

I don't know about gentlemen, but I for one can see no other motive.

"Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!"

We have tried it the TSA way and we don't like it. We have politely followed the rules until the rules started breaking the law and violating the Constitution. Understand we wish to be free.

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come."

I will not wait until my rights are gone before I fight for them.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
"

I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

I dare to know that the murder of 3000 people or even the murder of 300,000 people is LESS than giving up a SINGLE right.

You are forgetting the why of the attacks of 9/11. WE were attacked because we dare to let people worship as they wish, we dare to treat women as people not cattle, we dare to live in the modern age and not the 18th century, in short we were attacked because we dare to be free.

We may not like Constitutionally reasonable searches but we will comply, we may not like Constitutionally reasonable rules but we will comply.

We will NOT stand idly by and allow the TSA to join with our enemies and destroy the very freedom those 3000 people died for.

I would not have my Mother, Father, brother or sister die for my shoes, but for my RIGHTS they would gladly die.

January 27, 2009 5:56 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...
I would rather 3000 people die a year in terror related attacks than to give up a SINGLE right.

Even if it were your family, friends or yourself added in the equation? I would hope not.


Yes even if my family, friends or myself were included in the equation.

Compared to the life of slavery that a lose of rights requires, death is preferable.

January 27, 2009 6:11 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Trollkiller said...

Did my last couple of post get censored? If so why?


Nope didn't get censored it just took them much longer to update this entry than normal.

January 27, 2009 6:13 AM

 
Blogger RB said...

Instead, I seem to have found the page for the OFFICER GIORDANO flame wars.

January 26, 2009 7:58 PM

Giordano asked for the responses that have been posted.

I suspect more will follow from other posters that he considers "Un-Patriotic".

And people wonder why TSA has an image problem!

January 27, 2009 9:28 AM

 
Anonymous George said...

@Anonymous TSO: Fot [sic] those of you who do not like taking off your shoes, not taking liquids into the sterile area, showing your ID's do you honestly think the families of the 911 victims would have minded if their loved ones had those who murdered them would have had to have done the same.

I believe I can state with 100% certainty that at least some of the 3,000 people who perished on 9/11 would be horrified at what our Leaders perpetrated in their name. The TSA's "security circus" of shoes, liquids, and pointless ID checks is certainly among the least of those profanations, though I have no doubt that they would resent being continually "honored" in that fashion. But invoking their memory in an attempt to stifle honest questions and criticism of practices that appear useless and wasteful would surely rank near the top of the list.

Let us honor the memory and sacrifice of those who died on 9/11 by doing everything we can to remake the TSA into an effective, cost-effective, and accountable agency that renounces their uselessly burdensome "security circus" in favor of focused measures that respect the rights of the overwhelming majority of passengers who are no threat to aviation.

January 27, 2009 10:46 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Repealing the liquid ban. How will Starbucks, Hudson News and HastyAirSnaxPagoda, Inc recover the loss in demand for $2.50 water? Oh, the injustice of it all....

January 27, 2009 12:12 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...
Did my last couple of post get censored? If so why?

Did you have more links to your web pages "that promote services or products" thus violating blog policy again?


Blogger Bob and team do a pretty good job keeping spam off of this blog. The point of the link was not to sell the shirt, it was so it could be enjoyed for the funny.

The reason I asked about the censor issue was in case that link was a problem for him, as you see it was not. If it were I would have simply moved the illustration link from spreadshirt to my blog.

I create advertisement, I know how to sell products. If I wanted to sell a product from a TSA blog link I would have gone with something more biting than "I am the Snark Blogger Bob warned you about." Maybe something along the lines of a picture of Kip with the caption "Free at last, Free at last, Thank God Almighty, We are free at last"

You need to learn the difference between advertisement and illustration. Blogger Bob and team know the difference and apparently got the funny. Sorry it missed you.

January 27, 2009 1:30 PM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

The reason I asked about the censor issue was in case that link was a problem for him, as you see it was not. If it were I would have simply moved the illustration link from spreadshirt to my blog.

Correction, I misspoke I thought I was on the other blog entry. Sorry just woke up, it has been a long week already.

I asked about the censor issue on this Blog entry because my posts were delayed while the VBlogging entry posts were steadily being posted. I had some biting things to say and felt they may have been seen as over the top. Instead it looks like they were updating easy to read posts and not my novelettes.

Once again forgive me, the brain was not properly caffeinated.

January 27, 2009 2:12 PM

 
Anonymous Sandra said...

Screener Giordano asked if we'd seen Homeland Security USA? I've not and I would not waste my time. However, I understand the ratings dropped by about 22% in its second week.

Here are quotes from some reviews of the program:

"....snippets about the security cops who keep our nation safe from illegal aliens, drug smugglers and the occasional scofflaw belly dancer.

It's less about terrorist threats than the title might indicate, perhaps in large part because there just aren't a whole lot of those on a daily basis. In lieu of that kind of breach, we get a lot of criminals hiding weed and cocaine in spare tires in ABC's "Homeland Security USA" premiere, which isn't exactly Code Red Terror Alert time. So while the opening hour has a reasonable degree of success in holding our interest, the vibe one gets is that it might be tough to sustain sufficient dramatics week in and week out to keep viewers interested no matter how hot the Swiss belly dancer without a work visa may be."


"Many of the featured incidents are also troubling, especially when ethnic profiling clearly factors into the security precautions and innocent people are unapologetically harassed and/or held at gunpoint (sometimes in front of small, clearly traumatized children) thanks to “glitches” the system.

Watching this show may not make you feel safer, but it certainly has the potential to make you feel conflicted.
"

and my favorite:

“Homeland Security USA” is a powerful ego boost for insecure civil servants, but it doesn’t reveal much about the homeland’s actual security.

January 27, 2009 2:26 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's all quite simple.

If you were at another person's house and you did not like their rules, you would simply leave.
So, if you don't like the rules and guidelines set up, Don't Fly. But you aren't hurting TSA by not flying, you are hurting the airlines, and it's showing in the economy. If anything, you are only making TSA's job easier by not flying. Because those men and women get paid either way...whether the line is a 20 minute wait or there is no one walking through security.

January 27, 2009 9:14 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Irish,
You are right, but how many people sneak into THIS country illegally? And TSA is apart of the Department of Homeland Security, which handles borders and customs. If anything, DHS seems to be utilizing all of its employees to make the job easier for the other branches. I've flown through Vegas several times and have seen ICE taking away illegals from the checkpoints.

January 27, 2009 9:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've seen that TSA has the technology to tests liquids. They tested on my baby formula. Which I was fine with. But if they tested EVERYONE's liquids coming through the checkpoint, lines would be horrific! I can see why it's restricted. I'm fine with packing my hair stuff in my checked back. And I'm fine with not bringing any of that with me. I don't see what the big problem is.

January 27, 2009 9:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trollkiller wrote
"You are forgetting the why of the attacks of 9/11. WE were attacked because we dare to let people worship as they wish, we dare to treat women as people not cattle, we dare to live in the modern age and not the 18th century, in short we were attacked because we dare to be free."

You ever think about how we were attacked because the United States Government likes to play the role of World Police? It constantly goes into other countries for its own greedy reasons or to be the mediator in a fight that doesn't concern us?
I think we as a country would be better off if we just governed ourselves. If we relied on the resources we have instead of going to war for Bush's oil. Then we wouldn't be ticking off other countries and would only be hated for what we had instead of being hated for how we try to govern everyone else.

January 27, 2009 9:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trollerkiller saaaiiiidddddd....
"Give me liberty or give me death" is the most famous line from that speech given by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775.

Did you know that Mr. Henry had at least 6 slaves when he first married? I wonder how they would have felt about his speech...

January 28, 2009 12:29 AM

 
Blogger RB said...

It's all quite simple.

If you were at another person's house and you did not like their rules, you would simply leave.
So, if you don't like the rules and guidelines set up, Don't Fly. But you aren't hurting TSA by not flying, you are hurting the airlines, and it's showing in the economy. If anything, you are only making TSA's job easier by not flying. Because those men and women get paid either way...whether the line is a 20 minute wait or there is no one walking through security.

January 27, 2009 9:14 PM

Yes it is quiet simple; when the airlines realize that no one will fly because of TSA plenty of useless TSO's will be downsized, rules will be change to be more sensable and travel will finally get back to normal.

Hopefully the airlines will react before they have to shut down.

January 28, 2009 5:05 PM

 
Blogger RB said...

Anonymous said...
Irish,
You are right, but how many people sneak into THIS country illegally? And TSA is apart of the Department of Homeland Security, which handles borders and customs. If anything, DHS seems to be utilizing all of its employees to make the job easier for the other branches. I've flown through Vegas several times and have seen ICE taking away illegals from the checkpoints.

January 27, 2009 9:18 PM


...........................
Please post a link to the enabling documents giving TSA any role in the enforcement of immigration.

Thanks.

January 28, 2009 5:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't see what the big problem is."

The big problem is that the liquid policies are unnecessary, scientifically unjustifiable, and cause needless delay in the screening process.

January 28, 2009 5:28 PM

 
Anonymous Robert Johnson said...

Quote from Anonymous: Irish,
You are right, but how many people sneak into THIS country illegally? And TSA is apart of the Department of Homeland Security, which handles borders and customs. If anything, DHS seems to be utilizing all of its employees to make the job easier for the other branches. I've flown through Vegas several times and have seen ICE taking away illegals from the checkpoints."


Anonymous, the government doesn't work that way.

Every agency has a mandate and a mission and it is bound by law to complete that mission.

Just because TSA is a part of DHS does not give it the right to enforce immigration and customs laws. TSA's mandate is codified in law, and TSA has been very creative with that law in trying to get things done.

By your argument, if we extend it, the TSA could be conducting tax audits because after all, both are part of the government and they're just helping the IRS do its job.

If a department were to be tasked as one whole body to do that, it wouldn't have various agencies delegated to doing those things. They'd have general purpose officers that could work a TSA checkpoint one day and immigration the next. However, that's inefficient and difficult to manage. So roles are delegated to other organizations to focus on that task.

When I worked for the federal government under DoD, I couldn't walk into any other DoD agency and start doing their jobs, even though I might be "helping" those organizations. There were very strict rules in place defining our roles, and even then, they would only share with me what I needed to know to accomplish our joint and defined purpose for working together.

The government separates things for reasons. Delegations are one. When there are multiple similar agencies, many times its done for "competitive" purposes to provide insights from different angles and to make sure people see it for what it is, without blinders.

Bottom line: TSA has its job. CBP and ICE have their jobs. Just like the FBI and Secret Service have their jobs. Stick with what you do and do it well before you try to "help" others.

Robert

January 28, 2009 8:57 PM

 
Blogger Irish said...

An Anonymous blogger wrote:

"Irish,
You are right, but how many people sneak into THIS country illegally?"

A lot, from what I hear. But that's for the US Customs and Border Protection blog.


"And TSA is apart of the Department of Homeland Security, which handles borders and customs."

And your point is . . . ? The fact that TSA is a little cog in the big HS wheel doesn't make TSA part of every cog in the wheel. The Department of Homeland Security is a little cog in the Federal Government wheel, but that doesn't make HS (much less TSA) into tax collectors or drug enforcement officers or epidemiologists or Marines -- nothwithstanding the aspirations of certain TOS's to the contrary.


"If anything, DHS seems to be utilizing all of its employees to make the job easier for the other branches."

In the military, they call it "mission creep". When happens with mission creep is, people end up trying to do jobs they aren't trained to do and don't really understand, and end up doing them very poorly. Observe TSA. I rest my case.


"I've flown through Vegas several times and have seen ICE taking away illegals from the checkpoints."

What percentage of the 2,000,000 ID checks do you suppose that was? Even if the ID checks weren't clearly in a very, very gray area, something tells me a simple cost vs benefit analysis would hardly show an effective use of my tax dollars.

Here's a thought: let's let ICE take care of tracking down illegal aliens and TSA take care of preventing weapons, explosives and incendiaries from finding their way aboard aircraft and other common carriers. What a concept!

Irish

January 29, 2009 12:11 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

Did you know that Mr. Henry had at least 6 slaves when he first married? I wonder how they would have felt about his speech...


I was unaware but not surprised. You may be interested in this letter by Patrick Henry published by the New Yor Times in 1860.

January 29, 2009 5:42 AM

 
Anonymous OFFICER GIORDANO said...

Here is something for you to contemplate: The money from drug sales has been linked to terrorists groups. So yes the Border Patrol did stop marijuana and cocaine from entering the US.

I would like for you guys to explain to me what rights it is that TSA is violating. ID checks, so when you go to the store to buy alcohol/cigarettes, I guess the cashier is violating your rights as well. Bag searches/pat-downs, when you purchase your boarding pass you automatically consent to going through security with the possibility of being searched. Removal of shoes/No un-exemptible liquids over 3.4oz, I must have missed that part of the Constitution that says you have the right to keep your shoes on and that all liquids are free to go. Did I miss anymore "illegal acts by TSA"?

TSA is held accountable from within just like all other agencies.

When I stated that I'm not your employee, I meant that I'm every taxpayer’s employee (including myself). Are there holes in our agency? You better believe it. Is there an agency and/or business that doesn't? No, everywhere you go you can find a hole somewhere, somehow.

To me I know that I'm doing the best that I can within this agency and work on improving ongoing issues. Love me or Hate me, I'm going to make sure you are safe on that plane.

For those of you that think that checking the ID is just about checking the name to the boarding pass. Sorry you’re wrong. Do you really think that terrorists are going to try and travel with their real ID.? Of course not.

The liquids plot would have done some serious damage to those planes and killed a lot of people. Until you know yourself about every type of explosive and the damage that can be done, don't judge. Yes, I've seen what can happen.

Just to let you guys know; NO agency (local, state or federal government) is tested or trained more than TSA. I can take pride in that. This is not a job or career that anybody can JUST do.

Also the new Homeland Security Secretary (by the way this was not Kip's old spot it was Chertoff) has talked about expanding.

Hopefully one of these days I'll be able to meet some of you as you are flying with high spirits.

To TROLLKILLER,
So what has happened as a response to your "sanctioned illegal practices" complaints? I'm still checking ID's.
I'm sorry sir you don't OWN the government. If you did, i'm sure it would be called the United States of TROLLKILLER. You have a voice in the government just like all other taxpayers do (including me and the other 45,000 plus TSA Officers).
Please sir continue referring to me as a TROLL as I put on my size 16 boots as its getting deep.
I can assure you sir that I am NO traitor and am indeed a Patriot.
By the way it is TSA's concern if you are travelling next to someone with ill-intent or someone who is wanted. It is TSA's DUTY to make sure that nothing illegal is going on in that plane (e.g. smuggling drugs like I stated earlier has been linked to terrorism, a wanted person fleeing to another state to avoid prosecution, kidnappers taking their victims with them to do God knows what). The TSA works very efficiently with numerous different agencies and when there is concern on either side it is expressed and put into action.
The right equipment to identify liquids would require research and development and most importantly TIME to implement.
Illegal forced ID is breaking the law huh? I guess you want Police Officers out there checking your ID then huh? Then those same Police Officers can check your luggage and pat you down. Then those Officers can tell you why you can't have your 4oz. bottle of cologne.
The right to travel the length and breadth of this country is NOT a privilege. In fact that right pre-dates the Constitution. For once I can agree with you. You do have the right to travel this beautiful and loving country. However it is a PRIVILEGE to fly around in this country. See before TSA you couldn't smoke on a plane or board the plane if you are heavily intoxicated. You had to be wearing proper attire for the airline (in other words you couldn't board if you were topless or bottomless). So yes you can fly as long as you adhere to the proper guidelines.
One day that will come, until then expect me and other patriots to be in your face. We will not back down, we will not waiver. Nor will I sir, I will NEVER back down or waiver.

To GEORGE,
I agree with your statement about Patriotism. I am constantly questioning my superiors in regards to TSA protocols. My reference is meant that to be true Patriots you need to help and assist your government with positive and negative feedback. Bashing anything and everything that TSA does is not being supportive. To create change, you need to identify the issues and develop ideas to correct those issues.
That's why we get appalled and even more skeptical when you and your bosses respond to our questions and criticism by insisting that "If you knew what we know and saw what we see, you'd agree that all the stuff about shoes and liquids is all necessary and effective. But that all has to be classified or SSI to avoid aiding the enemy. You'll just have to trust us, obey us unquestioningly, and not complain about it. George I wish I could go into deeper detail about this, unfortunately I can't. Even if I did it would be held back by BOB.
We urge you to think constantly about 9/11 and be afraid!" I don't believe that's the issue here. It's not about being afraid, it's about making darn sure nothing like that happens on US soil ever again.

Dear Anonymous,
TSA as an entity has helped to stop numerous would be ill-intending passengers from getting through security. You can call BS on everything that I posted tonight, but if you really want to know the information that you are seeking than apply for TSA, pass the background test, physical test and actually get hired by TSA and then you will learn what you are asking for.

P.S. So once again please tell me how You would change TSA? You are now in charge of safely securing more than 2 million passengers’ a day. How do YOU do it?

January 29, 2009 5:52 AM

 
Anonymous Marshall's SO said...

"someone who is wanted."

Giordano, the TSA doesn't know who is on a wanted list and who is not. When you say stupid things like this, all you are doing is digging your hole deeper.

January 29, 2009 10:41 AM

 
Blogger Jim Huggins said...

Officer Giordano writes:

ID checks, so when you go to the store to buy alcohol/cigarettes, I guess the cashier is violating your rights as well.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

An ID check at a liquor store is needed because there are laws banning underage consumers from purchasing alcohol. The ID check keeps a law from being violated. What law is being enforced by my presenting an ID at a TSA checkpoint? Is it illegal for certain people to fly? Who?

TSA is held accountable from within just like all other agencies.

And just like all other agencies, such internal accountability has its limits. How well did the internal accountability work when a screener at Newark Airport was caught stealing --- not by the TSA, but because he tried to sell the stuff on eBay?

Are there holes in our agency? You better believe it. Is there an agency and/or business that doesn't? No, everywhere you go you can find a hole somewhere, somehow.

And the purpose of this blog is to help make TSA better. We can't make TSA better if we can't point out TSA's problems.

To me I know that I'm doing the best that I can within this agency and work on improving ongoing issues.

And we're trying to help from the outside, by pointing out the problems we see from our perspective.

For those of you that think that checking the ID is just about checking the name to the boarding pass. Sorry you’re wrong. Do you really think that terrorists are going to try and travel with their real ID.? Of course not.

Except that the 9/11 terrorists all presented their genuine IDs when they boarded their planes.

Just to let you guys know; NO agency (local, state or federal government) is tested or trained more than TSA. I can take pride in that. This is not a job or career that anybody can JUST do.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not TSA is spending its testing and training efforts in the right ways.

I appreciate that you take your job seriously, and do your best to secure the airport at which you work. But the same could be said for those who were working in airport security on 9/10/2001. Seriousness and effort are an important part of the security process, but they must be applied properly.

January 29, 2009 11:24 AM

 
Anonymous George said...

@Anonymous (January 27, 2009 9:14 PM): If you were at another person's house and you did not like their rules, you would simply leave.

An utterly flawed analogy, and a dangerous one too. When we use airports, we're not "guests at the TSA's house." If anything, the TSA is a guest at our house, since they're an agency of a democratically-elected government. They're our "employees," not our "hosts" (or "wardens," which seems to be how they think of themselves). They make the rules, but they're accountable to us through our elected representatives. (At least that's the theory. The previous administration, which created the TSA, seems to have had major issues with that concept.)

So in this case, if we don't like the TSA's rules we can either leave (i.e., not fly) or insist that our elected representatives investigate whether the rules are necessary and effective and change them if they aren't. To insist that we quietly accept and blindly trust the TSA even though what they do makes no sense is harmful both to democracy and to national security.

So, if you don't like the rules and guidelines set up, Don't Fly.

This would seem an excellent suggestion. The TSA is just one of the many things that makes flying a painful ordeal that is best avoided. If airline executives complain about financial difficulties because people aren't flying, they should consider looking in the mirror before they blame their disgusted (former) customers.

Unfortunately, that sensible suggestion too often is impractical or impossible. There are no longer ocean liners sailing to Hawaii or Europe, and most people would find such a trip too far to swim or kayak. And who has the surfeit of time for a leisurely transcontinental adventure on Amtrak or Greyhound?

Even on shorter trips for which Amtrak would seem practical turn out to be infeasible. To get between Los Angeles and San Francisco, Amtrak offers the choice of a 12-hour routing that involves two trains and two buses, or the infamous Coast Starlight that takes nearly as long; and the southbound train is consistently and unpredictably late (between 2 and 14 hours). Unless you want to drive (or bicycle?), flying is the only practical option.

The airlines can get away with treating their paying customers like self-loading cargo because they know we have no other choice. And I have no doubt that this "monopoly mentality" is a factor in the TSA's arrogant treatment of the public. Their TSOs and defenders can glibly tell us to go Greyhound if we don't like surrendering our solid deodorant or improperly labeled one-ounce shampoo bottles (in compliance with a secret unpublished rule in effect at that checkpoint). But they know we really don't have that choice at all. It's just another way they express contempt for the public.

January 29, 2009 11:31 AM

 
Blogger RB said...

OFFICER GIORDANO said...

"I would like for you guys to explain to me what rights it is that TSA is violating. ID checks, so when you go to the store to buy alcohol/cigarettes, I guess the cashier is violating your rights as well. Bag searches/pat-downs, when you purchase your boarding pass you automatically consent to going through security with the possibility of being searched."


"By the way it is TSA's concern if you are travelling next to someone with ill-intent or someone who is wanted. It is TSA's DUTY to make sure that nothing illegal is going on in that plane (e.g. smuggling drugs like I stated earlier has been linked to terrorism, a wanted person fleeing to another state to avoid prosecution, kidnappers taking their victims with them to do God knows what). The TSA works very efficiently with numerous different agencies and when there is concern on either side it is expressed and put into action."
................................
Bob, is this an example of a well trained TSO?

Someone who does not understand the difference of given ID to a person running a business versus an agent of the government?

A person who has taken on the task of complete law enforcement for all possible violators of the law who wish to travel?

TSA has some serious problems as evidenced by the comments of this person.

I cannot explain how befuddled I am about the ignorant remarks this person has made.

Perhaps TSO's need lessons in civics along with Xray training!

How could someone like this make it through TSA screening standards?

My thought is that TSA has no standards!!

January 29, 2009 12:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Giordano @ "You can call BS on everything that I posted tonight, but if you really want to know the information that you are seeking than apply for TSA, pass the background test, physical test and actually get hired by TSA and then you will learn what you are asking for."

##########################

If your enemy is as determined, and resourceful as the TSA implies, you should recognize that they have already infiltrated your organization.

If the secrecy you use to justify hiding from the public is the only thing keeping us safe, we're toast.

(I just had to type a word verification that I cannot post here)

January 29, 2009 12:41 PM

 
Anonymous Earl Pitts said...

Screener Giordano, all I have to say is you're a poster child for what is wrong with TSA. You prove the assertions many make about bad apple TSO's.

As to your other questions about how we'd do it? Asked and answered many, many times. I don't think people should have to repeat themselves any more than they already have because you came late to the party.

Of course, given that TSA keeps ignoring questions and suggestions, I'm sure they'll come up again soon.

Earl

January 29, 2009 1:35 PM

 
Blogger Tomas said...

OFFICER GIORDANO blathered...
I would like for you guys to explain to me what rights it is that TSA is violating. ID checks, so when you go to the store to buy alcohol/cigarettes, I guess the cashier is violating your rights as well

Not, that clerk is not violating any of my rights.

You are displaying a clear misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of something that as an "officer" of the US Government you absolutely need to understand correctly.

When I am dealing with any civilian person or business, and as a part of that business transaction they request my ID, I can make a choice. If I wish to continue dealing with that person or business I can show my ID. If I choose not to show my ID I can discontinue the interaction and walk away. It is purely a private choice and interaction. My debit and credit cards, for example, have large, obvious tags on them stating "Ask for ID"... (As a protection for both myself and the business.)

When the ID requester is instead a government agenct, ANY government agent, the rules are different and spelled out in more detail at the very founding of our nation. The Fourth Amendment only applies to governmental actors. It does not guarantee a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations.

Please, please try to learn about the requirement for you, as a government agent, to follow more strict rules than a clerk at the local Stop-N-Rob.

As it stands right now there appears to be nothing written in law that allows a government agent to prevent free travel or peaceful assembly of individuals unless they show ID.

The only recent US Supreme Court ruling on that allowed the request (not demand) for ID in association with travel specifically because it was a request, and if the person chose not to identify themselves, there was another way (a thorough search) that would allow them to travel without presenting ID (Gilmore).

First, the 9th Circuit has seen the Secret Law on ID at airports and, according to them, one can either choose to show ID or 'volunteer' for additional screening. Many people have since chosen 'secondary screening' at airports around the country and successfully flown without showing their papers, most famously a member of the Department of Homeland Security's Privacy Advisory Committee.

Others have tried to do the same and have been denied the right to fly.

Signs at airport across the country continue to state that ID is required in order to fly, and TSA's website makes the same misleading claim. A member of the flying public can never be sure as to which policy will be enforced: the law as stated by the 9th Circuit or the law as it (apparently falsely) reads on airport signs and some government websites.

There, in short, is the reason for the question and the demand for an answer.

January 29, 2009 5:06 PM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

OFFICER GIORDANO said...
The liquids plot would have done some serious damage to those planes and killed a lot of people. Until you know yourself about every type of explosive and the damage that can be done, don't judge. Yes, I've seen what can happen.

Why did you repeat that?

As has been pointed out many times on this blog, the liquids plot could not have been carried out.

Yes, IF it could have been carried out, it would have done a lot of damage. Yes, we've all seen the video of someone setting off the liquid explosive by remote control. No, it could not have been carried out.

No chemist not employed by the TSA has come forward and said "yes it can be done." No chemist employed by the TSA has come forward and said "yes it can be done." TSOs say that chemists in the TSA have said it, but no chemist has come forward to say it.

On the other hand, many chemists not employed by the TSA have come forward and said "no it cannot be done."

There was a thorough analysis, and there are too many problems with the plot.

As separate ingredients it is necessary to have a fully equipped lab within the secure area to correctly mix them within the secure/sterile areas.

As a finished product it is too volatile to bring into the secure/sterile areas - it would explode the moment the car transporting it hit a bump in the road!

The liquid bomb plotters were sitting around saying "wouldn't this be a great idea". Not "this is how we'll do it, you bring in this liquid, you bring in that one." They were saying "yeah, that would be cool."

They didn't have the know how, and chemists have come forward and said that nodoby has the know how to pull it off the way the plotters imagined.

You cannot transport the finished product. You cannot mix the chemicals in an airport terminal or on an airplane.

So why did you repeat that?

One of the biggest problems that people have with the TSA is that we know when we are being lied to, we call you on lying to us, so you simply repeat the lies.

The liquid plot is a load of hogwash. And hogwash would be more dangerous than what those stupid plotters imagined.

January 29, 2009 5:23 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So once again please tell me how You would change TSA? You are now in charge of safely securing more than 2 million passengers’ a day. How do YOU do it?"

We have answered that before!!

End the watch list. End laptop, shoe and liquid madness. End MMW. Use metal detectors, scan for trace chemicals and X-rays. Secure luggage. Screen everyone the same. Use intelligence to catch people before they put the plot into action (as was done in London).

Basically, end the TSA as it is!

January 30, 2009 2:59 AM

 
Blogger Irish said...

Officer Giordano, I can only respond to a few pieces of your lengthy post because that's all I have time for right now. I'm sure others will address what I leave out.

You said: "TSA is held accountable from within just like all other agencies."

Being "held accountable from within" in an agency shrouded in unnecessary secrecy and stealth is not very comforting to me. Fortunately, TSA is also somewhat accountable to external review, even if not as openly as I would like.


"When I stated that I'm not your employee, I meant that I'm every taxpayer’s employee (including myself)."

That is no where near what you said. What you said was: "By the way I am not YOUR employee, I am a government employee. You sir did not hire me, the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY did." But I appreciate your recognition and acknowledgement of your misstatement.


"Are there holes in our agency? You better believe it. Is there an agency and/or business that doesn't? No, everywhere you go you can find a hole somewhere, somehow."

And those holes should acknowledged and addressed, OPENLY. This whole "SSI" construction undermines the credibility of TSA every step of the way. Wasting time and resources performing and defending useless procedures doesn't solve the problem. Listen, terrorists aren't stupid. TSA's "SSI" policy -- which seems to apply to nearly EVERYTHING, including a simple list of the rules we need to know to successfully navigate your obstacle course -- isn't foiling those guys. They're a half step ahead of everything TSA does. "SSI" is just something TSA made up because what it doesn't want to disclose doesn't rise to the level of "classified"; there is no such classification as "SSI".


"To me I know that I'm doing the best that I can within this agency and work on improving ongoing issues. Love me or Hate me, I'm going to make sure you are safe on that plane."

I don't have any particular feeling about you or any other TSO. I'm not convinced that most of what you do keeps me any safer, but I think you're an earnest young man, intent on "doing good". I hope you do work from within to improve "issues" because the willingness to do that -- more than inspecting my ballet slippers or tossing my Deer Park or checking my ID -- is one of the most important things you can do if you really want to try to help keep me safe.

Irish

January 30, 2009 9:16 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The liquids plot would have done some serious damage to those planes and killed a lot of people."

No, it would not have, since the plotters had no liquid explosives. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. The plot was purely aspirational -- the plotters did not even have passports or tickets, let alone "liquid explosives" that could harm an aircraft. And, as has been repeated noted to you, Mr. Giordano, TSA has provided absolutely no independent analysis which would indicate that any liquid could possibly harm an aircraft, nor that its policies are in any way grounded in scientific fact.

"Until you know yourself about every type of explosive and the damage that can be done, don't judge. Yes, I've seen what can happen."

No, you haven't, Mr. Giordano.

January 30, 2009 10:07 AM

 
Blogger Dunstan said...

OFFICER GIORDANO said...

"P.S. So once again please tell me how You would change TSA? You are now in charge of safely securing more than 2 million passengers’ a day. How do YOU do it?"

First off, a strict adherence to levels of both courtesy and professionalism on the part of TSA. While the public isn't getting paid to go through the check point, TSO's are getting paid to provide safety. Complaints through this blog have caused a reduction in the childish yelling and other unworthy conduct, but there are still problems. The perception of a lack of uniform standards will persist until the leadership makes it clear what the rules and policies are, and those policies are palatable to the average passenger. Most people will adhere to a uniform set of guidelines, if they are administered in a reasonable fashion.

January 30, 2009 12:21 PM

 
Anonymous NoClu said...

officer GIORDANO,

I hope you've calmed down a bit. First, thanks for your input to this blog. It helps me better know my civil servants.

I think you're wrong an a significant number of points though. And, if not wrong, at least so opinionated that you can't event consider another point of view.

For example...
For those of you that think that checking the ID is just about checking the name to the boarding pass. Sorry you’re wrong. Do you really think that terrorists are going to try and travel with their real ID.? Of course not.
This is part of the point. If a bad guy wants to travel, they won't use a name that shows up on your naughty list. Thus, the naughty list is useless.

"The liquids plot would have done some serious damage to those planes and killed a lot of people."
The prosecution of the liquid plot people proved that, while they were big on ideas, they weren't able to do anything close to what you claim.

"By the way it is TSA's concern if you are travelling next to someone with ill-intent or someone who is wanted. It is TSA's DUTY to make sure that nothing illegal is going on in that plane (e.g. smuggling drugs like I stated earlier has been linked to terrorism, a wanted person fleeing to another state to avoid prosecution, kidnappers taking their victims with them to do God knows what)."
This isn't part of your authorized mission as outlined by the statutes that created the TSA. Trollkiller and others have repeatedly posted the actual wording.

"See before TSA you couldn't smoke on a plane or board the plane if you are heavily intoxicated."
You never flew in the 70's or early 80's.

"P.S. So once again please tell me how You would change TSA? You are now in charge of safely securing more than 2 million passengers’ a day. How do YOU do it?"

Disband the TSA, re-implemnt private security.

Purchase equipment to better detect explosives (liquid, plastic, solid, etc.)

Secure/scan Luggage.

Secure/scan Cargo.

Secure/scan those with access to the air-side operations. Include security scans for all airport employees.

Etc. A lot of other ideas have been posted in previous threads. Read for a while, it may be informative.

January 30, 2009 3:14 PM

 
Anonymous Robert Johnson said...

Quote from Tomas: "My debit and credit cards, for example, have large, obvious tags on them stating "Ask for ID"... (As a protection for both myself and the business.)"

Actually, Tomas, you're putting yourself at more serious risk.

First of all, a credit card is not valid if it is not signed. "See ID" type statements don't make it so. In this case, the merchant is required to ask for positive ID and sign the card in their presence or they're not supposed to process the transaction.

Secondly, "See ID" statements without a signature mean that anyone can sign the card and present it as valid. My local supermarket has a paper published by Visa stating both of these points. Both open you up to fraud.

Thirdly, asking for ID, except for the exception above is generally prohibited by Visa and Mastercard. A business CAN ask to see ID, but they cannot refuse to process a transaction if I refuse. In fact, the businesses can be fined or face worse sanctions as requiring ID is a direct violation of the merchant agreements. American Express doesn't have this provision, but says its card can't be treated any diffrently than a competing card so it's covered by that.

If a business compares the signature on the back of the card and it matches the slip, the business is not held liable in the case of fraud.

By requiring ID, you are arguably putting the business at more risk of fines and sanctions from Visa and Mastercard if they make it a habit and some one turns them in. And of course, you put yourself at risk if you don't sign your cards because anyone can use them if lost.

FWIW, I view the ID harassment for credit card purchases with the same contempt as TSA's ID checks. Neither prevent fraud and neither do anything for security. Do you think a typical Walmart clerk could identify a fake ID, especially if it's an out of state fake ID?

Google Visa and MC's merchant agreements if you don't believe me. Visa flat out says it believes merchants shouldn't even ask for ID. Mastercard has an online form you can fill out if you Google "mastercard merchant violation." First hit ... and look what the causes for reporting are.

Now if these companies, responsible for processing billions of dollars in transactions and have done the risk analysis because they have a lot to lose, doesn't that say something about presenting ID for credit card purchases?

It's always baffled me that they'll take the same card if they try to card me (I always tell them no then report them to Visa and MC), yet they'll take my debit card with a PIN no questions asked. It's much easier to memorize someone's PIN than it is to forge their signature. And of course, the same thing with cash ... that cash could be stolen or obtained fraudulently yet they don't card for cash either.

Anyway, bottom line: "papers, please," whether required to travel or to purchase something at the store that is not a controlled substance are both bad things. We should be standing up against BOTH as they both amount to the same thing: harassment.

Robert

January 30, 2009 5:48 PM

 
Blogger Irish said...

Officer Giordano asks:

"So once again please tell me how You would change TSA? You are now in charge of safely securing more than 2 million passengers’ a day. How do YOU do it?"

1. Go back to the TSA mission. Stop attempting to be All Things. TSA's mission is NOT "to make sure that nothing illegal is going on in that plane". TSA's mission is to "protect the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce". Let me repeat that. " ... TO ENSURE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT ... ".

2. Focus. Identify what is truly CREDIBLE threat to the nation's transportation systems and develop security policy based upon CREDIBLE threat. Resist the urge that seems to impel the agency to a knee-jerk reaction to every flight of fancy by some malcontent.

3a. Develop a response plan -- secure cargo areas, beginning with employees. That’s both air industry's employees AND TSA's own employees (see, Item #7, below). The technology to do so exists. Visit Las Vegas. Not one dollar passes from the hand of one casino employee to another that is not observed and recorded. Cash handling areas are compartmentalized and admission is strictly controlled. NO PART of any cash handling area is exempt or hidden from observation and no one can simply step out of camera view.

3b. Secure cargo and baggage before loading, and the cargo space in aircraft. Partner with airlines to improve cargo and baggage handling. Partner with airports and set up clear goals to upgrade cargo handling practices. Take lessons from FedEx and UPS about the expeditious movement of cargo within the airport, and secure cargo and baggage in pods designed to minimize damage from explosive detonation within the aircraft. (This will probably take a subsidy from the government, but it would be money well-spent.)

3c. Develop systems, both technological and practical, to screen passengers effectively. Eliminate the security theater aspects of the screening process. Screen for credible threat and stop trying to interdict every illegal item you might conceivably suspect. (That is, "suspect" as opposed to illegal items you DETECT. Attempting to declare large amounts of cash somehow "contraband" applies here. Focus on your mission.) And screen consistently. The idea that my 4" swiss army knife is somehow more lethal than my 10" steel knitting needles is ludicrous in the extreme. It's these sorts of inconsistencies that (rightly) set TSA up for ridicule.

4. Passengers: Develop guidelines which address credible threat, and PUBLISH THE GUIDELINES -- ALL of the guidelines -- so that the traveling public is able to cooperate. (This idea that publishing the rules will somehow give terrorists a leg up is simply ridiculous on its face.) Apply the guidelines CONSISTENTLY at EVERY checkpoint, and make clarifications PROMPTLY and PUBLICLY.

5. Process: You are separating people from their belongings and by so doing you are exposing them, however incidentally, to the very real possibility of loss and theft. Learn from Disney. They are expert people-movers. The improvements at BWI are a step in the right direction, in terms of moving people effectively, and there is still room for more improvement.

6. Workforce: Inculcate the workforce with the knowledge that the vastest majority of the traveling public are their partners and willing to cooperate with reasonable security precautions, and only the tiniest fraction represents any sort of threat at all. Stop treating every member of the traveling public as if they’re “the enemy”. Train and test VIGOROUSLY to be sure every employee understands what the rules are and how to apply them. Train the workforce to maintain security with firmness, politeness, and respect -- and keep training until you eliminate the "drill sergeant" mentality which continues to permeate much of the organization. (No offense to the drill sergeants of the world – one of the reasons I love to deal with military personnel is that they are unfailingly, excruciatingly polite, even sympathetic, while not budging one tiny fraction of an inch from their orders. TSA could lean a valuable lesson.) Movement has been made in that direction, but there’s still a long way to go. The public will not respect you until you respect THEM. Utilize "secret shoppers". Make it public that you’re using secret shoppers, and provide intensive remedial training for personnel who aren't getting it and who aren't appropriately applying their training.

7. Accept responsibility. Every organization having a workforce as large as TSA's is going to pick up the occasional bad apple. It's inevitable. Own up to the misdeeds of your employees, whether in conduct, or in performance, or in honesty. (Honestly, Officer Giordano, aren’t you even a little embarrassed by some of posts on this very blog by TSA’s own employees? I have the greatest respect for the TSO’s who have posted, here and elsewhere, acknowledging ongoing problems internal problems.)

8. Be more transparent. The biggest problem TSA has is its public image. Cloaking itself in secret “SSI”, most of which is transparently NOT particularly sensitive in any way, is demeaning to the public it serves. Citizens of the US are rightly suspicious of secret lists and secret rules and secretive government agencies. I can’t follow the rules if you won’t TELL ME the rules. Doesn’t that seem self-evident to you? If there MUST be some sort of “no fly” list – and I actually agree that it serves a purpose – then PUBLISH the criteria that will land me on it. Give me a SPEEDY way to remedy if my name ends up on there by mistake – a SPEEDY administrative hearing is a good place to start, with an expedited avenue to redress of unfavorable decisions in the courts. When I look at the US Immigration website, all the stuff that would deny me entry or get me kicked out is all there, all spelled out. There’s no reason HS can’t do the same.


I'm nearly at a thousand words here, and I have more to say. But, does this give you any ideas, Officer Giordano? Anything you'd disagree with?

Irish

January 31, 2009 7:37 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

OFFICER GIORDANO said...

To TROLLKILLER,
So what has happened as a response to your "sanctioned illegal practices" complaints? I'm still checking ID's.

So far they are sandbagging, that is fine because I am making sure I have an abundance of solid evidence before trotting this through the courts. As a killer of trolls I have a very exacting method.


I'm sorry sir you don't OWN the government. If you did, I'm sure it would be called the United States of TROLLKILLER.


You can only wish to be lucky enough to live in the United States of Trollkiller. That's a change we can believe in!


You have a voice in the government just like all other taxpayers do (including me and the other 45,000 plus TSA Officers).


Like I said "You work for ME and every other citizen of this country."


Please sir continue referring to me as a TROLL as I put on my size 16 boots as its getting deep.


There you go again, what I said was "Please do not use the Troll tactic of claiming you wrote something different than what you really wrote."

Now you are using the Troll tactic of changing what I said. Please stop.

Size 16 WOW! This makes your feet bigger than your head. ;-) I hope the shoes are issued with the uniform.


I can assure you sir that I am NO traitor and am indeed a Patriot.


Then act like one. Following the rules and violating the Constitution and law is NOT how a Patriot acts. You were sworn by your own free will to UPHOLD and SUPPORT the Constitution of the United States of Trollki--- err America.


By the way it is TSA's concern if you are traveling next to someone with ill-intent or someone who is wanted.

It is TSA's DUTY to make sure that nothing illegal is going on in that plane (e.g. smuggling drugs like I stated earlier has been linked to terrorism, a wanted person fleeing to another state to avoid prosecution, kidnappers taking their victims with them to do God knows what).

The TSA works very efficiently with numerous different agencies and when there is concern on either side it is expressed and put into action.


NO! It is the TSA's concern if the person sitting next to me is armed. That's it, that is ALL you have to worry about IF you follow the law.

You are NOT a police force, you (TSO) do NOT have police powers above an ordinary citizen.

I have NO problem with the TSA working with law enforcement as I have NO problem with the clerk at 7-11 working with the cops. If a cop brings a description of a suspect to you and says "keep an out for this guy" and you agree, feel free to call a REAL cop when you see the suspect.

If you run across drugs in your Constitutional reasonable search feel free to call a cop.


The right equipment to identify liquids would require research and development and most importantly TIME to implement.


It would go a lot faster if the TSA spent money on that instead of illegal forced ID verification, new age sound and light shows and itchy faux police uniforms that cause a security problem with the metal badge.


Illegal forced ID is breaking the law huh? I guess you want Police Officers out there checking your ID then huh? Then those same Police Officers can check your luggage and pat you down. Then those Officers can tell you why you can't have your 4oz. bottle of cologne.


Works for me. Police officers have the training to know when an ID check is illegal, something TSOs and the TSA management are lacking.


The right to travel the length and breadth of this country is NOT a privilege. In fact that right pre-dates the Constitution. For once I can agree with you. You do have the right to travel this beautiful and loving country. However it is a PRIVILEGE to fly around in this country.


It is a privileged to fly but that is a privileged I negotiate with between me and the airlines, not me and the Government. Once the Government interferes with my right to take a legal mode of transportation without due process it has violated that right to freely travel.


See before TSA you couldn't smoke on a plane or board the plane if you are heavily intoxicated. You had to be wearing proper attire for the airline (in other words you couldn't board if you were topless or bottomless). So yes you can fly as long as you adhere to the proper guidelines.


Some of what you mentioned were rules imposed as a condition of travel by the airlines, a PRIVATE business and they are in their legal right to impose those rules. Some of what you mentioned were laws like public drunkenness or smoking. None of what you mentioned were in violation of the law or Constitution as the forced ID verification as criterion for granting access to the sterile area is.


One day that will come, until then expect me and other patriots to be in your face. We will not back down, we will not waiver. Nor will I sir, I will NEVER back down or waiver.


I hope those size 16s are comfortable because one day they will be walking away from the illegal acts of the TSA, this is assuming you are the Patriot you say you are and not the Traitor I see today.

February 1, 2009 2:01 AM

 
Blogger Phil said...

In response to anonymous comments from someone who attempted to justify the practice of having TSA staff do work on behalf of TSA that is completely unrelated to transportation security or to TSA's mission statement ("The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce"), Irish wrote:

"The fact that TSA is a little cog in the big HS wheel doesn't make TSA part of every cog in the wheel. The Department of Homeland Security is a little cog in the Federal Government wheel, but that doesn't make HS (much less TSA) into tax collectors or drug enforcement officers or epidemiologists or Marines -- nothwithstanding the aspirations of certain TOS's to the contrary."

Irish continued:

"In the military, they call it `mission creep'. When happens with mission creep is, people end up trying to do jobs they aren't trained to do and don't really understand, and end up doing them very poorly. Observe TSA. I rest my case."

For those readers who are relatively new to this blog: See previous conversation in the August, 2008, "New Security Technologies Make Airport Debut" post, where we discussed mission creep and also this failed attempt at justification of that mission creep based on the fact that TSA is part of DHS.

In response to the aforementioned post, I wrote:

"I'm still baffled by the idea that TSA can protect the nation's transportation systems by searching people (and I use that lightly; it's a non-traditional, hands-off search that examines what is under people's clothing using "millimeter waves") at political party rallies.

"Lynn cited an August, 2008, DHS "Fact Sheet: Homeland Security Agencies Protect Political Conventions" that states:

"Since January [of 2008], more than 2,300 TSA officers have supported Secret Service activities at more than 180 campaign events from coast to coast. In Denver, TSA is providing approximately 100 Transportation Security Officers to assist the Secret Service with screening at convention venues. In Saint Paul, TSA will provide approximately 50 officers to fill the same need."

"I'm bothered by the mission creep, and I'm concerned that such actions contribute to creation of a hostile environment that is unsafe for peaceful protesters, police, and the press on whom [previously broken link fixed] we rely to be our eyes and ears.

"However, I will admit that such a practice is likely quite effective at conditioning the public to put up with the sort of warrantless searches, random interrogations, and dragnet operations that TSA seems set on conducting."


I also wrote:

"We asked why TSA would be counting money carried by passengers and reporting its findings to Customs and Boarder Patrol. You [Bob at TSA] responded by saying that TSA does so because 1) it is your policy to do so (hey, thanks for pointing that out), and 2) you and CBP are both part of DHS (so what? you and FDA are both part of the federal government, but that doesn't mean you should be out there testing cattle).

"To clarify my reference to FDA: If you can justify TSA doing the job of CBP because they are both part of DHS, you may as well justify TSA doing the job of FDA because they are both part of the United States Government. How far up the hierarchy do you feel it is appropriate to climb in order to find such a connection?

"You at TSA operate in a very touchy area. What you do borders on -- if not crosses the line into -- unconstitutionality. We're putting up with warrantless searches and restriction of freedom of movement from you. Now you're not only working towards enhancing transportation security, you're conducting dragnet operations for all sorts of unrelated crimes and searching people at political party rallies, air shows, and football games. I think this is reason for alarm. Your agency is out of control and repeatedly extending its reach.
"

Lynn and Bob never answered any of the questions I asked.

Those comments are equally relevant here, and the cause for alarm over the spread of cancer within our government that we call "TSA" still exists. TSA provides a small degree of security that did not exist before the agency's formation. That additional security is far outweighed by the danger to our freedom that TSA creates.

As long as TSA restricts our movement based on blacklists and subjects us to rules and regulations that we are not allowed to read, it makes us less free. TSA uses fear to achieve its objectives (threatening that violence will occur if we do not allow them to do what they want on a large scale and threatening us with restriction of our movement and monetary fines if we do not comply with their arbitrary rules at the checkpoints they erect), paradoxically achieving what our government would have us believe is a primary goal of the criminal organizations from which TSA purports to protect us (i.e., organizations of people known as "terrorists", those which generate fear in order to achieve their objectives and who reportedly "hate our freedom").

--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net

February 2, 2009 2:15 PM

 
Blogger Tomas said...

Off-Topic for this discussion, but something I must respond to in order to correct a misunderstanding contained within the comments of this discussion.

Robert Johnson wrote
Quote from Tomas: "My debit and credit cards, for example, have large, obvious tags on them stating "Ask for ID"... (As a protection for both myself and the business.)"

Actually, Tomas, you're putting yourself at more serious risk.

First of all, a credit card is not valid if it is not signed. "See ID" type statements don't make it so. In this case, the merchant is required to ask for positive ID and sign the card in their presence or they're not supposed to process the transaction.

Secondly, "See ID" statements without a signature mean that anyone can sign the card and present it as valid. My local supermarket has a paper published by Visa stating both of these points. Both open you up to fraud.

Thirdly, asking for ID, except for the exception above is generally prohibited by Visa and Mastercard. A business CAN ask to see ID, but they cannot refuse to process a transaction if I refuse. In fact, the businesses can be fined or face worse sanctions as requiring ID is a direct violation of the merchant agreements. American Express doesn't have this provision, but says its card can't be treated any diffrently than a competing card so it's covered by that...


Let me reply only to those three...

(1) All my credit cards are signed properly with my legal signature AND have a separate tag on them instructing the merchant to verify my ID at my request.

(2) Does not apply to me, see (1).

(3) My instructing the merchant to request my ID to see that my face matches the picture and the name matches the one on the card does NOT get the merchant in trouble with the merchant agreement as the merchant is not making that a part of their normal card acceptance procedure, but simply following specific instructions by the cardholder.

What you wrote was a well written response, however it does not apply directly to the way I have what I do engineered.

(I also have hand written behind my signature, in the signature block of the cards, "SEE ID"... The additional tag on the card is simply reinforcement.)

So, my cards are signed, and my personal request to the merchant doe not at all conflict with the standard merchant agreement since it is at the customer's request.

(Yes, I have verified with VISA...)

Take care,
Tom (1 of 5-6)

February 2, 2009 3:38 PM

 
Blogger RB said...

5 passengers were arrested due to suspicious behavior or fraudulent travel documents
15 firearms found at checkpoints
4 artfully concealed prohibited items found at checkpoints
10 incidents that involved a checkpoint closure, terminal evacuation or sterile area breach

................................
Bob TSA post the information like above every week.

I have just one question.

Why law is being violated that would cause a person to be arrested for acting with suspicious behavior?

February 2, 2009 4:45 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...
Anonymous said...

Did you know that Mr. Henry had at least 6 slaves when he first married? I wonder how they would have felt about his speech...

I was unaware but not surprised. You may be interested in this letter by Patrick Henry published by the New Yor Times in 1860.

January 29, 2009 5:42 AM

Sounds like Mr. Henry changed his tune eventually. Anyhow, I hate that you're so resourceful! have a nice day.

February 2, 2009 9:20 PM

 
Anonymous Robert Johnson said...

Tomas, if that's your cup of tea, that's fine.

I just don't see the difference between TSA's carding to use our rights and carding for using credit cards.

Neither the business nor you are liable for the purchases (well, the business is more at risk if they don't compare the signatures), and you're going to be in the same mess cleaning up fraud whether ID is checked or not.

While what you're doing may not be violating the merchant agreement, it can also give clerks an idea that "this is a good thing" and they start doing it regularly. I see it at the stores I shop ... some cashiers try to card, and some don't.

I guess I don't see how some can be against "papers please" from the government while welcoming it from merchants when it boils down to the same thing. I guess the only real difference is that you can walk away from the business deal, but you can't walk away from the government. Of course, if it gets widespread, you're screwed either way.

Having been a victim of ID theft myself, I avoid showing my ID whenever possible. Flashing my ID to anyone asked when I made a CC purchase is how my identity got stolen in the first place. ;) If anything, the likelihood of ID theft is less at a TSA checkpoint since they're at least had a background check. God only knows who's checking out your ID at Walmart, Pizza Hut, etc.

Bottom line: it really boils down to the same thing: paper's please. Only difference is who's doing it.

Reasonable people can disagree on this. ;)

Robert

February 3, 2009 11:03 AM

 
Anonymous Trollkiller said...

Anonymous said...

Trollkiller said...

I was unaware but not surprised. You may be interested in this letter by Patrick Henry published by the New Yor Times in 1860.

January 29, 2009 5:42 AM

Sounds like Mr. Henry changed his tune eventually. Anyhow, I hate that you're so resourceful! have a nice day.


:D I am the Google King !!!

February 3, 2009 1:16 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So once again please tell me how You would change TSA? You are now in charge of safely securing more than 2 million passengers’ a day. How do YOU do it?"

Well,since you asked...

#1 Drop the SSSS/Selectee nonsense. Or limit it to actual items that can be confirmed. (Well,sir,you DID try to bring a gun on fight ### on (fill-in-the-day). Too many times a passenger will come in line chosen for extra screening because his flight was delayed/cancelled/rebooked/strom delay; in other words, he was not a selectee BEFORE he was rebooked.

As pointed out before,nothing can stop "THE BAD GUY" from using a false name. And if "THE BAD GUY" is using his real name, he may not even be on the list as the FBI/CIA/NSA may be watching him to see whohe contacts and meets.

I feel it takes up my time looking for stuff that ain't there on people who weren't a threat to begin with, rather than spending time doing stuff that matters, like looking at ID's...

(Sorry,TK.I couldn't resist!)

#2 later...

TSO Joe

February 13, 2009 10:30 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trollkiller wrote
Impressive you are related to important man in history. It is ironic that you chose the path you did...

Not al all if you really understood what Patrickl Henry wrote and meant it would not be a surprise at all. "Liberty" is not a one size fits all word, rather a belief in what liberty represents. To me liberty reopresnets a liberty from being harassed by terrrorists, liberty means feeling free and safe when I board a plane. Just because YOU do not understand why we do what we do does not mae it unjustified, or unreasonable. I myself do not understand quite a few things but that does not make them wrong. I have not seen you give any critiscisim that could not have been made about anything or anyone that YOU personally don't approve . Tje words would be the same the name of the p[arty would be replaced and the comments continue in spite of you not understanding the real issue. Why are you continuiong like so many to use the words of the past to make arguments for the furture. We no longer lives in a time where slaves are sold but we are all slaves to the terrorists, they run things now. We who work at TSA (the airport staff) do not set the policies and/or procedures, we carry out what we are hired to do which is to protect our countries airplanes from terrorist attacks with the menas and we are provided with. If you have better solutions, programs and mechanics to help us do our job we are all for it. And yes you pay our salaries (thank you) so help us do the job you are paying us for. Being negative is not going to help me wake up in the morning wanting to do my best, if I was paying an employee I would give him the best tools, the best attitude and a work place to be proud of.I read your comments and although I undertsand what you are trying to say it's all just anti govt propoganda from a disgruntled citizen. It's the same story from the 60's, the 80's regurgetated to fit the problem of the day for you. Grow up and realize this country is for all of us and to keep it for our children we must TRY to make it safer, I am still a beleiver that LIBERTY has it's price and that my shoes and liquids are not too high a price to pay for trying, it is a sad statement that you still choose the shoes over life.In the end it is you I truly feel sorry for, how sad to be so angry, miserable and shoeless.

February 20, 2009 4:00 AM

 
Blogger Ayn R. Key said...

Anonymous February 20, 2009
Not al all if you really understood what Patrickl Henry wrote and meant it would not be a surprise at all. "Liberty" is not a one size fits all word, rather a belief in what liberty represents. To me liberty reopresnets a liberty from being harassed by terrrorists, liberty means feeling free and safe when I board a plane. Just because YOU do not understand why we do what we do does not mae it unjustified, or unreasonable. I myself do not understand quite a few things but that does not make them wrong.

I tried so hard to let this one go...

No. "Liberty" does mean liberty from being harassed by government. What you describe is "security". It is possible to have both, it is possible to have neither, it is possible to have only one of the two.

But it is not possible to take a word that means one and say it has the definition of the other. That is such a corruption of the English language it actually left me speechless when I first read it.

Since you are so unimpressed with the Patrick Henry quote, try this one on for size:

Those who would trade essentail liberty for temporary security deserve, and will soon have, neither - usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

You want security. Go ahead and say you want security. You want the security to not be hearassed by terrorists.

Grow up and realize this country is for all of us and to keep it for our children we must TRY to make it safer, I am still a beleiver that LIBERTY has it's price and that my shoes and liquids are not too high a price to pay for trying, it is a sad statement that you still choose the shoes over life.In the end it is you I truly feel sorry for, how sad to be so angry, miserable and shoeless.

You do not seem to understand the principles involved. You are not a believer in liberty, unless you redefine the term to mean its opposite. You did redefine the term to mean its opposite. Given that, what term do you use to define what I believe in, who believe in the liberty side of the liberty versus security equation? What term do you use to define those who do not want the government intruding on our rights, given that you've defined liberty as the government intruding on our rights?

You cannot embrace dictatorship and call it liberty!

March 2, 2009 6:28 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ayn R Key,

Aren't we the clever named one. If you want to disagree about what I refer to or call freedom,security and liberty all fine we can discuss until hell freezes over and not become one with the answer. And frankly it is really not important to me.However I still do not understand what exact rights you bleieve TSA has taken from you. You would have more credibility were you able to justify this one sentence of yours. RIGHTS please explain.

April 11, 2009 4:26 AM

 
Anonymous Affiliate Programs said...

may not be the person you want in your "Black Diamond" lanes, and finding something as simple as a lane marked with the accepted international handicapped symbol (wheelchair in blue and white), where I will be assured of as short a path as practical, a place to sit to remove my shoes, a place to sit to put my shoes on, and as short a time standing in line as practical, does not seem to be something TSA has figured out.

May 5, 2009 4:08 AM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home