There
was no confetti or sirens, but the one millionth passenger was screened by TSA
Pre✓™ today. Not only are the TSA Pre✓™ participants
growing in number, but the locations are also growing. United Airlines, Jet
Blue and US Airways as well as some additional airport locations around the
nation will begin operations this year.
Currently,
TSA Pre✓™
is operating with American Airlines at airports in Chicago, Dallas, Miami, Las
Vegas, New York (JFK), Minneapolis and Los Angeles, with Delta Air Lines at
airports in Atlanta, Detroit, Las Vegas, New York (LGA), Orlando, Salt Lake
City, Minneapolis and Washington, DC and Alaska Airlines in Seattle.
In
case you’re wondering what TSA Pre✓™ is, you can go here to read all about it. Long story
short, it’s an initiative that allows passengers to expedite their screening
experience if they opt in. How do you opt in to TSA Pre✓™? Funny you
should ask… Just go here.
TSA
Pre✓™
is only one of our risk based security initiatives. Be sure to read about our
other initiatives:
Keep
an eye on our TSA Pre✓™ page for future
announcements.
TSA Blog Team
If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.
57 comments:
Sure, it's an initiative that allows passengers to expedite their screening ... except that (a) you have to pay money to participate, either by joining a Trusted Traveler program or by qualifying for various Frequent Flyer programs, and (b) even if you choose to be in the program, you still might not get expedited screening because of TSA's 'random' selection criteria.
If this is such a good idea, why not make it available to everyone?
but doesn't do a think for the majority of people who travel and present almost zero threat, like little 4 year old girls, or 7 year olds with disabling conditions.
Why doesn't TSA do something for the majority of travelers instead of the minority?
That would truly be Risk Based Screening!
Does anyone actually believe this screening can 100% identify terrorists?
That's right, Bob, just post more stories and push that embarrassing 'civil liberties' story down, down, down the page!
But to business:
"it’s an initiative that allows passengers to expedite their screening experience if they opt in"
Um, not necessarily. As you have pointed out in the past (but some how mysteriously 'forgot' this time. Oops!), the "TSA will always incorporate random and unpredictable security measures throughout the airport and no individual will be guaranteed expedited screening".
So... yeah. It's basically worthless, as the TSA screeners will do whatever they want to you anyway.
Screening for Passengers 12 and Under
Are you sure you want to be going there, Bob, after last week? That page clearly states "Passengers 12 and under are now allowed ... multiple passes through the metal detector and advanced imaging technology", yet the 4-year old who hugged her granny was DENIED a second nudie-scan: "a TSO began yelling at her daughter, would not permit her to pass through the scanner again and said that a pat-down was necessary."
TSA to Begin Limited Test of Modified Screening for Passengers 75 and Older
Does that include telling older women 'There's an Anomaly in the Crotch Area'?? http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/tsa-to-my-mother-in-law-theres-an-anomaly-in-the-crotch-area/256450/
I'm surprised you don't have an initiative for hurting Congressmen:
"Last week, a TSA agent at San Antonio International Airport patted down Francisco "Quico" Canseco, who sits on the House Financial Services Committee. The agent, Canseco told POLITICO, was so aggressive in his pat-down that Canseco ended up batting the agent's hand away.
"As he was moving up my leg, he moved his hand aggressively up to my crotch and he hurt me," Canseco said."
No one should have to take their shoes and light jackets off, or liquids and laptops out of bags. The fact that you allow some not to proves that.
I would think that members of the United States Congress would be given trusted traveler status by the very virtue of their position. Yet a SAT screener wanted to charge Congressman Canseco with assault over the actions in this video:
TSA Screener feels Resistance
Perhaps TSA would like to explain why the screener is touching the genitals of the Congressman and why that is not a justifiable reason to move the screeners hands away.
And to repeat, why is a Member of Congress not afforded a bit of respect by TSA for his position in government?
Pathetic. This level of screening, minus the police-state background check, should be the default, not the exception for the privileged elite few.
I am not eligible for PreCheck because I am not American. Yet, every time I fly into the US (and over the US for many hours) I get to go through security that does not require removal of shoes or jackets, and does not involve those horrible whole body scanners.
Why am I only a risk when flying out of the US, but not it?
Yay! More of my comments have been censored by the TSA. Yes, I can be a bit snarky at times, but the comments were ON-TOPIC and entirely within comment guidelines. Welcome to the Soviet States of America, comrades.
"Does anyone actually believe this screening can 100% identify terrorists?"
Who makes it onto a plane is unimportant. But even if it were, the TSA can't even identify a terrified 4-year old girl, mistaking her for an "uncooperative" potential terrorist instead. Maybe they're too busy stealing from retired Air Force majors or taking bribes from drug runners? Or violating everyone's fourth amendment rights with their illegal searches and seizures.
As I pointed out in my censored comments, this new program allows people the chance to pay money to MAYBE not be have their rights violated every single time they fly, but TSA's multiple layers of security [theater] allows them to still be "randomly" selected to endure additional screening.
So my question is this. Out of all those flying under this program, what percentage of passengers who ponied up their hard-earned money to avoid this theater still had to endure it?
==Does anyone actually believe this screening can 100% identify terrorists?==
It doesn't have to be 100%. It's enough, though, that it deters terrorists who don't know how to get by, nor what to expect.
The system isn't there to identify terrorists. It's there to deter them, and it does the job.
Bob [not the blogger] said...
==Does anyone actually believe this screening can 100% identify terrorists?==
It doesn't have to be 100%. It's enough, though, that it deters terrorists who don't know how to get by, nor what to expect.
The system isn't there to identify terrorists. It's there to deter them, and it does the job.
May 4, 2012 4:13 PM
...........................
The problem with TSA screening methods is that they have ticked off a goodly amount of people who no longer trust or cooperate with TSA. This includes Members of Congress and other people who are working hard to end TSA's reign of terror.
When people no longer trust, respect, or cooperate that makes security screening less effective. That is TSA's only accomplishment.
Bob [not the blogger] said...
"The system isn't there to identify terrorists. It's there to deter them, and it does the job."
Unless you are friends with a number of terrorists you have no idea if this program is a deterrent or not. You are making claims you can't back up.
It's pretty much the same for all the TSA procedures. They claim they deter terrorists, but there is no actual evidence to support that.
==Unless you are friends with a number of terrorists you have no idea if this program is a deterrent or not. You are making claims you can't back up.==
Except that, if it weren't a deterrent, they'd be getting through. We know that the program is deterring because the terrorists face too many unknowns.
==It's pretty much the same for all the TSA procedures. They claim they deter terrorists, but there is no actual evidence to support that.==
There's more "evidence" to support it than not. There is NO evidence to show that TSA is NOT deterring terror.
Bob [not the blogger] said...
The system isn't there to identify terrorists. It's there to deter them, and it does the job.
::sigh::
I have this rock that repels tigers. Does it work? Well, do you see any tigers around??
http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/tigerrepellantrock/
Bob [not the blogger] said...
Except that, if it weren't a deterrent, they'd be getting through.
You are not accounting for one possibility- that there have been no more attempts.
Bob [not the blogger] said...
"Except that, if it weren't a deterrent, they'd be getting through. We know that the program is deterring because the terrorists face too many unknowns."
You are assuming that they are trying. Again, how many terrorists do you know?
Since there aren't many terrorist attacks outside of airplanes either, it seem the general rate of terrorist attacks is very low. Under those conditions, lack of an attack proves nothing. It's like assuming that your lucky rabbit's foot is protecting you from lightning because you haven't been hit by lightning yet.
This is a program that should expand. A revenue generator that puts the costs of security on the people that travel. The fee for entering the program should increase as the program expands to all airports and airlines.
Let the costs of security be borne by the people that travel.
Bob [not the blogger] said...
"There's more "evidence" to support it than not. There is NO evidence to show that TSA is NOT deterring terror."
There is ZERO evidence to support the claim that the TSA is deterring terrorists.
There is however lots of evidence to show they are deterring honest Americans from flying.
In any event, deterrence is useless. If all they do is cause a terrorist to attack someplace else they aren't saving any lives. They are just moving the location of the deaths. You only save lives by actually *catching* terrorists.
There haven't been any more attempts because they don't see any way around security, any way to get through. They are deterred.
Bob [not the blogger] said...
There haven't been any more attempts because they don't see any way around security, any way to get through.
Just a glance at the national news headlines (or following the links from this very blog!) will reveal several ways "around security".
Bribe a TSA employee. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/26/tsa-pair-accused-accepting-bribes
-of course, you'd have to tell him/her that you were, say, smuggling drugs, and not
explosives.
Hang a metallic object on your side, so the scanner doesn't see it.
http://boingboing.net/2012/03/07/howto-get-metal-through-a-tsa.html
-also mentioned here on the TSA blog
"Do you think the guy working at McDonalds inside the security area has the same “high” level background check TSA agents go through? They don’t. Have you ever seen a McDonalds employee in the security line? With a hand truck loaded with French fry oil and boxes of meat patties? No, because they don’t go through security. They go through the side door that has no screening."
http://mariopiperni.com/national-security/airport-security.php/comment-page-1#comment-25912
"One example: Employee at one of the shops inside the sterile idea walks up with a beer keg on a handcart -- and is waved through by the private screeners, bypassing all screening. (The employee wasn't screened at all, not to mention the opportunity to hide objects inside the ke[g].)"
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/archive/t-536972.html
Toss a bag of guns over the airline perimiter fence.
Heck, t he TSA doesn't screen the majority of cargo, so just ship a bomb. It'll probably get through. If not, try again tomorrow.
Not to mentionthe fact that (according ot the latest figures) the TSA MISSES 70% of test weapons/bombs....
...and the list is endless.
Are you saying that no terrorist ever read any headline or story (newspaper, magazine, or blog) that had ANY of these ideas? if the terrorists are that... dumb? ignorant? illiterate?... then we hardly have anything to fear from them even without the TSA.
So, you can stop AstroTurfing now. No one is fooled.
==There is ZERO evidence to support the claim that the TSA is deterring terrorists.
==
And you know this how, by conferring with terrorists?
I know the program works and is deterring terrorists because THEY. ARENT. GETTING. THROUGH.
They see the strict security, and they cannot be sure they won't get caught, and, so they don't try.
==There is however lots of evidence to show they are deterring honest Americans from flying.==
People have the Right to choose to go another way. That is the correct response, if they want to avoid what they say they think is the TSA "torture chamber."
==In any event, deterrence is useless.==
We see. Keeping terrorist from terroizing you is useless. Uh huh.
==If all they do is cause a terrorist to attack someplace else they aren't saving any lives.==
You're blaming the wrong people: TERRORISTS are the ones attacking.
== They are just moving the location of the deaths.==
That is correct; THEY -- the terrorists -- are moving the location of the deaths.
== You only save lives by actually *catching* terrorists.==
Deterrence is the TSA mission. That mission is working.
==You are not accounting for one possibility- that there have been no more attempts.==
How do you know?
==You are assuming that they are trying.==
I haven't said that they are trying. They are deterred from trying because they cannot figure out the security scheme.
==Since there aren't many terrorist attacks outside of airplanes either, it seem the general rate of terrorist attacks is very low. Under those conditions, lack of an attack proves nothing.==
Oh, you WANT an attack. We see.
Bob (not the blogger) writes:
I know the program works and is deterring terrorists because THEY. ARENT. GETTING. THROUGH.
And why does TSA get the credit for the lack of terrorist activity?
Princess Margaret of Great Britain died in early 2002 of a stroke. Since her death, there has not been a single major terrorist attack involving commercial aircraft. Obviously, Princess Margaret was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and her death has ensured our safety since that time.
One has to make a stronger argument to distinguish between correlation and causality. Do a web search on the phrase "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
Bob [not the blogger] said...
"You're blaming the wrong people: TERRORISTS are the ones attacking."
And the TSA is doing nothing to stop that.
"That is correct; THEY -- the terrorists -- are moving the location of the deaths."
So you admit that the TSA isn't saving any lives?
"Deterrence is the TSA mission. That mission is working."
You claim to know a lot about what terrorists are doing. I think maybe the TSA needs to keep a close watch on you. I don't think that even the TSA leaders will claim that they know for certain that they have prevented any attacks.
Bob [not the blogger] said...
"I know the program works and is deterring terrorists because THEY. ARENT. GETTING. THROUGH."
I know you're just making stuff up. Unless you know some terrorists you have no way of knowing if they attempted anything or not.
When Osama got killed we captured lots of documents on al-Qaeda operations. Many of these have been released. Perhaps you could point to a document that describes a concern about TSA security.
Bob [not the blogger] said...
"Oh, you WANT an attack. We see."
If that's your best response it's pretty much an admission that you have nothing.
You keep making claims and when we ask for evidence to prove those claims you resort to personal attacks.
Bob [not the blogger] said...
"They see the strict security, and they cannot be sure they won't get caught, and, so they don't try."
To use your own words:
"And you know this how, by conferring with terrorists?"
==To use your own words:
"And you know this how, by conferring with terrorists?"==
It's more relvant to my using that reasoning than it is for you since there have been no successful terrorist attacks in the U.S.
==Bob [not the blogger] said...
"Oh, you WANT an attack. We see."
If that's your best response it's pretty much an admission that you have nothing.==
It's clear that, unless there is a terrorist attack here, you see no evidence.
==You keep making claims and when we ask for evidence to prove those claims you resort to personal attacks.==
WHAT "personal attack"?
YOU must prove your assertion that TSA is not working, that terrorists are getting through, attacking and succeeding. That there have been no attacks from inside the U.S. proves that something about TSA procedures IS working; terrorists are deterred.
==Unless you know some terrorists you have no way of knowing if they attempted anything or not.
==
I know because they have said that they are intent on attacking and succeeding and, had they gotten through, they would've attacked and succeeded. That hasn't happened.
==Bob [not the blogger] said...
"You're blaming the wrong people: TERRORISTS are the ones attacking."
And the TSA is doing nothing to stop that.==
Except that TSA IS stopping it. No terrorist has done what they say they want to do. TSA is to credit.
==Bob (not the blogger) writes:
I know the program works and is deterring terrorists because THEY. ARENT. GETTING. THROUGH.
And why does TSA get the credit for the lack of terrorist activity?==
Because the terrorists lookit a checkpoint, for example, see that it's probable that they won't get through, attack and succeed, and they decie that it's too risky that they won't succeed. TSA deters terrorism. You may not like it, but that's too bad.
i went thru security in LAS this week. i'm in AA's elite program, with "secure" flight data stored, and was not chosen for precheck. i'm not alone -- in the 15 minutes it took to get thru the line, i saw one person use the precheck position, and she pretty clearly knew the TSO's...
great program you've got going there..
Bob [not the blogger] said...
"I know the program works and is deterring terrorists because THEY. ARENT. GETTING. THROUGH."
############
Diversion is the TSA mission. TSA's mission doesn't protect the places outside its area of interest. In places with real terrorists and effective checkpoints, the terrorists attack the unprotected crowded checkpoint lines.
From not seeing any terrorists blow up a IED-wheely-bag I know the program is useless because THEY ARENT DIVERTED.
If they didn't do randomized screening then security would be predictable...
it's not security if they are predictable.
"If they didn't do randomized screening then security would be predictable...
"it's not security if they are predictable."
That's called "security through obscurity." Ask anyone in IT - it doesn't work.
(comment follows proper guidelines. due to widespread censorship by the TSA, screenshot has been taken)
==If they didn't do randomized screening then security would be predictable...
it's not security if they are predictable.==
No one would know the stop-scheme.
That being said, random stops are unconstitutional, except where consent is given, or implied.
Signage warns, at the entrance to airports, that you are subject to search at any time. Continuing onto and staying on the airport property implies your consent.
Alarming the checkpoint sensors give TSOs the probable cause they need to search you at that point, though they don't need it because they have your consent anyway.
Anonymous said...
"If they didn't do randomized screening then security would be predictable...
it's not security if they are predictable."
That's what the TSA wants people to believe. I don't buy it.
If they are depending on randomness then there is a good chance are missing stuff. Randomness is not a replacement for effectiveness.
Bob [not the blogger] said...
"Because the terrorists lookit a checkpoint, for example, see that it's probable that they won't get through, attack and succeed, and they decie that it's too risky that they won't succeed. TSA deters terrorism. You may not like it, but that's too bad."
Sorry, but that argument just doesn't work. A real terrorist isn't going to just give up because they can't get on an airplane. They will attack somewhere else. Where are all the attacks? Lack of attacks other places indicates that the intelligence services and military are the ones doing a good job of stopping these people before they attack.
"If they didn't do randomized screening then security would be predictable...
it's not security if they are predictable."
Nonsense. "Randomness" may or may not be part of a security posture - it's exceedingly weak if it's included - but by itself, randomness has nothing to do with security.
Educate yourself on the true nature of the threat and the value of security. It's not difficult but it does take some time.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Because the terrorists lookit a checkpoint, for example, see that it's probable that they won't get through, attack and succeed, and they decie that it's too risky that they won't succeed. TSA deters terrorism. You may not like it, but that's too bad.
An0n says:
Sorry, but that argument just doesn't work.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Even though it does.
Anon says:
A real terrorist isn't going to just give up because they can't get on an airplane.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
If he cannot figure out the security scheme, he won't try to get through. He will be deterred if it will cost him too much without success.
Anon says:
They will attack somewhere else.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
They will watch there, too, for vulnerabilities. If they find none, they will be deterred.
Anon says:
Where are all the attacks?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
The would-be attackers find that they cannot figure out the security scheme and won't try if they can't assure themselves of success getting through. They are deterred.
Anon says:
Lack of attacks other places indicates that the intelligence services and military are the ones doing a good job of stopping these people before they attack.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
It's a team effort. TSA is responsible for a broad schedule of security at the airport, seen and unseen. TSA is a member of the team.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
"The would-be attackers find that they cannot figure out the security scheme and won't try if they can't assure themselves of success getting through. They are deterred."
Seriously? You are claiming that the security every place in the entire country is so good that a terrorist can't find *anyplace* to attack? We aren't talking about just airports here, but everywhere.
If that's your claim then I think we need some serious evidence to back that up because it's just nonsense.
==Lack of attacks other places indicates that the intelligence services and military are the ones doing a good job of stopping these people before they attack.==
Where were they in the lead-up to and on 9-11?
"Because the terrorists lookit a checkpoint, for example, see that it's probable that they won't get through, attack and succeed, and they decie that it's too risky that they won't succeed. TSA deters terrorism. You may not like it, but that's too bad."
Yeah, we've seen the TSA. They stand around yelling about liquids, and believe their job is to prevent liquids from coming through the checkpoint. There is no chance that any terrorist would feel apprehensive about bringing anything through the checkpoint they wanted to bring. The reason there have been no terrorist attacks is that the terrorists don't want to disrupt the TSA. The goal of terrorists is to harm America, and the TSA couldn't be any more harmful to America than if Osama bin Laden had personally designed it.
TSA deters terrorism, the terrorists being apprehensive about trying to take their weapons through because they have done cost-benefit analyses and know that the cost is too great. Most -- the very vast majority -- people agree with me.
==Seriously? You are claiming that the security every place in the entire country is so good that a terrorist can't find *anyplace* to attack? We aren't talking about just airports here, but everywhere.
==
They are deterred everywhere they are deterred, where they cannot figure out the security scheme.
Bob [not the blogger] said...
"Where were they in the lead-up to and on 9-11?"
Yes, the intelligence services messed up on 9/11. That was over ten years ago and it has nothing to do with their current performance.
It also has nothing to do with the TSA's current performance.
What was your point exactly?
Bob [not the blogger] said...
"They are deterred everywhere they are deterred, where they cannot figure out the security scheme."
That's a nonsense statement and you are still evading the question. Do you claim that there is not a single place anywhere in this country where a terrorists could successfully attack? A simple yes or no.
You seem to believe that through some magic the TSA inspections at the airport are protecting the entire country.
"TSA deters terrorism, the terrorists being apprehensive about trying to take their weapons through because they have done cost-benefit analyses and know that the cost is too great."
Hahaha, nothing about the TSA is going to make any terrorist apprehensive.
4-year-old girls maybe.
Teenagers with insulin pumps maybe.
Terrorists, no.
==...the intelligence services messed up on 9/11. That was over ten years ago and it has nothing to do with their current performance.
It also has nothing to do with the TSA's current performance.
What was your point exactly?==
You don't know???? You have a short attention span.
==Do you claim that there is not a single place anywhere in this country where a terrorists could successfully attack? A simple yes or no.
You seem to believe that through some magic the TSA inspections at the airport are protecting the entire country.==
If you're looking for 100%, you won't find it anywhere.
However, the TSA plan works and most people agree with me, including Diane Feinstein.
==nothing about the TSA is going to make any terrorist apprehensive.
4-year-old girls maybe.
Teenagers with insulin pumps maybe.
Terrorists, no.==
Except that TSA procedures ARE making terrorists apprehensive.
Four-year-old girls can carry weapons, weapons parts and bombs. We found that out in Viet Nam. They now can carry these things in their stuffed animals, as we have seen.
In any case, better to endure some incnvenience and discomfort at the checkpoint than in the plane going down in flames and pieces.
"In any case, better to endure some incnvenience and discomfort at the checkpoint than in the plane going down in flames and pieces."
There are SO many things wrong with this statement. It's not "inconvenience and discomfort." It's the stripping of our rights. The ones you presumably (from some of your other comments) fought to protect. It's the sexual assault of our elderly and children, and even our congress-critters! In ANY other context, the invasive pat-downs would result in sexual assault charges. What's even more wrong with the comment is that you, again presumably, took an oath to defend our Constitution. That oath didn't end when you left the military, yet you defend those who violate it on a daily basis as part of their job.
In any case, better to endure some incnvenience and discomfort at the checkpoint than in the plane going down in flames and pieces.
"Except that TSA procedures ARE making terrorists apprehensive."
No they aren't. TSA procedures are directed to stopping water bottles from coming through the checkpoint. Nothing about that is going to make a terrorist apprehensive.
"Four-year-old girls can carry weapons, weapons parts and bombs. We found that out in Viet Nam. They now can carry these things in their stuffed animals, as we have seen."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"In any case, better to endure some incnvenience and discomfort at the checkpoint than in the plane going down in flames and pieces."
If terrorists wanted to mount an attack, the easiest way for them to do it would be to have a couple guys with AK's spray the line of people that's forced to wait while the ID-looker-atter spends 5 minutes on each driver's license trying to figure out what it is. They don't do this because they don't want the TSA to be shut down or altered. Terrorists want to harm the US, and they haven't yet been able to figure out a better way to harm the US than to just let the TSA keep on doing what it's doing.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Except that TSA procedures ARE making terrorists apprehensive.
Mike Toreno says:
No they aren't.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Yes, they are.
Mike Toreno says:
TSA procedures are directed to stopping water bottles from coming through the checkpoint.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
What appeared to be water bottles may contain something more sinister. It's part of the plan to stop them.
Mike Toreno says:
Nothing about that is going to make a terrorist apprehensive.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Except those who wish to fill water bottles with some kind of flammable, or explosive, material, or fluid, and to see that the TSOs, per your complaint, aren't checking those.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Four-year-old girls can carry weapons, weapons parts and bombs. We found that out in Viet Nam. They now can carry these things in their stuffed animals, as we have seen.
Mike Toreno says:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Oh, you're not up on the news, are you?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
In any case, better to endure some incnvenience and discomfort at the checkpoint than in the plane going down in flames and pieces.
Mike Toreno says:
If terrorists wanted to mount an attack, the easiest way for them to do it would be to have a couple guys with AK's spray the line of people that's forced to wait while the ID-looker-atter spends 5 minutes on each driver's license trying to figure out what it is.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
They are interested in drama. It's much more dramatic to take down an airplane full of people.
Mike Toreno says:
They don't do this because they don't want the TSA to be shut down or altered.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
They don't do this because they have bigger fish to fry.
Mike Toreno says:
If terrorists wanted to mount an attack, the easiest way for them to do it would be to have a couple guys with AK's spray the line of people that's forced to wait while the ID-looker-atter spends 5 minutes on each driver's license trying to figure out what it is.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
They are interested in drama. It's much more dramatic to take down an airplane full of people.
Right. You claim (risibly) that terrorists can't get anything they want past the TSA, that the TSA deters terrorist attacks. I point out that the laziness and incompetence of the TSA screening clerks creates a target that terrorists can attack anytime they like.
You respond to this by claiming that terrorists are waiting to attack an airplane in flight.
If terrorists are deterred by the TSA, why are they waiting to attack an airplane? The only reason they would be waiting to attack an airplane would be that they knew the TSA is ineffective at preventing attacks on airplanes.
Shouldn't this headline read more than 1 Million Passengers Abused by TSA?
Dogs and metal detectors........
Mike Toreno says:
If terrorists wanted to mount an attack, the easiest way for them to do it would be to have a couple guys with AK's spray the line of people that's forced to wait while the ID-looker-atter spends 5 minutes on each driver's license trying to figure out what it is.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
They are interested in drama. It's much more dramatic to take down an airplane full of people.
Mike Toreno says:
Right. You claim (risibly) that terrorists can't get anything they want past the TSA, that the TSA deters terrorist attacks. I point out that the laziness and incompetence of the TSA screening clerks creates a target that terrorists can attack anytime they like.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
And, yet, they haven't...because they haven't figured out how, given the strict security.
Mike Toreno says:
You respond to this by claiming that terrorists are waiting to attack an airplane in flight.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
The intel that's been reported says they still want to take an airplane down.
Mike Toreno says:
If terrorists are deterred by the TSA, why are they waiting to attack an airplane?
Bob [not the blogger] says:
The biggest statement. Ask them.
Mike Toreno says:
The only reason they would be waiting to attack an airplane would be that they knew the TSA is ineffective at preventing attacks on airplanes.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
The TSA job is not to prevent an attack on airplanes. It is to stop anyone from boarding an airplane with items that could be used in an attack on an airplane. After all, TSA can't prevent somebody, unarmed, from running up and down the aisles and punching everybody in sight.
Is TSA Pre✓™ copy protected or can anyone use TSA Pre✓™
Bob [not the blogger] says:
And, yet, they haven't...because they haven't figured out how, given the strict security.
Mike Toreno says:
You respond to this by claiming that terrorists are waiting to attack an airplane in flight.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
The intel that's been reported says they still want to take an airplane down.
The target I was talking about is created by the laziness and inattentive of the screening clerks, entirely aside from their failure at stopping terrorists from bringing anything they want through the checkpoint. The laziness and inattentiveness of the screening clerks creates lines of hundreds of people that could easily be attacked.
Your claim that terrorists are waiting to take an airplane down, and that the TSA is stopping terrorists from taking an airplane down, are mutually contradictory. If terrorists believe they can't get things past the TSA, they will quit waiting to take an airplane down and will instead go on to attack other targets.
If, as you say, terrorists are waiting to attack an airplane, that means they know the TSA won't stop them.
However, terrorists aren't bothering to attack airplanes or airports because they don't want to disrupt the TSA's operations. Terrorists want to harm America and the TSA is doing that for them.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
And, yet, they haven't...because they haven't figured out how, given the strict security.
Mike Toreno says:
You respond to this by claiming that terrorists are waiting to attack an airplane in flight.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
The intel that's been reported says they still want to take an airplane down.
Mike Toreno says:
The target I was talking about is created by the laziness and inattentive of the screening clerks, entirely aside from their failure at stopping terrorists from bringing anything they want through the checkpoint.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
TSOs have been alert enough to show would-be terrorists that they have a slim chance of getting through.
Mike Toreno says:
The laziness and inattentiveness of the screening clerks creates lines of hundreds of people that could easily be attacked.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Checkpoint TSA's mission is to stop things from getting onto airplanes. The lines outside the checkpoints are the "responsibility" of other agencies. So far, those agencies have deterred the terrorists, too.
Mike Toreno says:
Your claim that terrorists are waiting to take an airplane down, and that the TSA is stopping terrorists from taking an airplane down, are mutually contradictory.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
They are not.
The terrorists are watching, and they are assessing their chances of success. They cannot figure out the TSA scheme, and, so, they are deterred by their apprehension, thanks to TSA.
Mike Toreno says:
If terrorists believe they can't get things past the TSA, they will quit waiting to take an airplane down and will instead go on to attack other targets.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
All TSA can do at the airport is handle the traffic at the airport. Other agencies have responsibilities elsewhere. They are also doing the job.
Mike Toreno says:
If, as you say, terrorists are waiting to attack an airplane, that means they know the TSA won't stop them.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
Actually, they DO know that TSA stops them by using a security scheme that the terrorists can't figure out.
Mike Toreno says:
However, terrorists aren't bothering to attack airplanes or airports because they don't want to disrupt the TSA's operations.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
The terrorists are holding back because they are deterred by their apprehension as they gaze upon what they find to be a formidable TSA scheme.
Mike Toreno says:
Terrorists want to harm America and the TSA is doing that for them.
Bob [not the blogger] says:
TSA is doing a job that provides the best protection against terrorists taking down your airplane. If you don't like it, don't fly.
Post a Comment