TSA Promises to be everywhere...

[revelarts]

...Last month in Orlando, Fla., a team set up metal detectors at a Greyhound bus station and tested passengers' bags for explosive residue.In the Carolinas this year, TSA teams have checked people at the gangplanks of cruise ships, the entrance to NASCAR (http://www.latimes.com/topic/sports/motor-racing/nascar-15039007.topic) races, and at ferry terminals taking tourists to the Outer Banks (http://www.latimes.com/topic/travel/tourism-leisure/outer-banks-PLREC000005.topic).
At the Charlotte train station on Dec. 11, Seiko, the bomb-sniffing dog, snuffled down a line of about 100 passengers waiting to board an eastbound train. Many were heading home after watching the Charlotte Panthers (http://www.latimes.com/topic/sports/football/carolina-panthers-ORSPT000035.topic) NFL (http://www.latimes.com/topic/sports/football/national-football-league-ORSPT000007.topic) team lose to the Atlanta Falcons (http://www.latimes.com/topic/sports/football/atlanta-falcons-ORSPT000032.topic) after holding a 16-point lead.....


The Transportation Security Administration (http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/laws/law-enforcement/transportation-security-administration-ORGOV000000157.topic) isn't just in airports anymore. TSA teams are increasingly conducting searches and screenings at train stations, subways, ferry terminals and other mass transit locations around the country.
"We are not the Airport Security Administration," said Ray Dineen, the air marshal in charge of the TSA office in Charlotte. "We take that transportation part seriously."

The TSA's 25 "viper" teams — for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response — have run more than 9,300 unannounced checkpoints and other search operations in the last year. Department of Homeland Security (http://www.latimes.com/topic/unrest-conflicts-war/defense/u.s.-department-of-homeland-security-ORGOV0000136.topic) officials have asked Congress for funding to add 12 more teams next year.....

...TSA officials say they have no proof that the roving viper teams have foiled any terrorist plots or thwarted any major threat to public safety. But they argue that the random nature of the searches and the presence of armed officers serve as a deterrent and bolster public confidence....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220,0,3213641.story


I don't feel safer somehow, and my confidence isn't bolstered.

TSA brought to you by the WAR ON TERROR

[ConHog]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220,0,3213641.story


I don't feel safer somehow, and my confidence isn't bolstered.

TSA brought to you by the WAR ON TERROR

Okay, I can see them being involved with cruise ships, but what the fuck is up with the random "viper" teams? This needs to be rethought.

[fj1200]

Clearly a necessary evil as we need to keep random busses from blowing up.

[LuvRPgrl]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220,0,3213641.story


I don't feel safer somehow, and my confidence isn't bolstered.

TSA brought to you by the WAR ON TERROR

Yep, pretty much how it works.
First the govt encourages people to use public transportation because its more green,and by refusing to lesson congestion on our roads, then they use the police state to control everybody on public transportation, and if one complains, they they simply say,( I know I've heard this recently from a nazi style police state supporter) "you dont have to use public transportation," even though its what they want and encourage, try to make us feel guilty for not using it, and indoctrinate the kids into thinking its wrong to drive your own car when public trans is available. GUILT

[ConHog]

Yep, pretty much how it works.
First the govt encourages people to use public transportation because its more green,and by refusing to lesson congestion on our roads, then they use the police state to control everybody on public transportation, and if one complains, they they simply say,( I know I've heard this recently from a nazi style police state supporter) "you dont have to use public transportation," even though its what they want and encourage, try to make us feel guilty for not using it, and indoctrinate the kids into thinking its wrong to drive your own car when public trans is available. GUILT

What a fail. Cruise ships and airlines are not public transportation, and ThAT is the only place I would condone the TSA being involved and have stated as such. Oh unless of course you would like us to believe that I am not who you were referring to as a nazi style police state supporter.

[fj1200]

What a fail. Cruise ships and airlines are not public transportation, and ThAT is the only place I would condone the TSA being involved and have stated as such. Oh unless of course you would like us to believe that I am not who you were referring to as a nazi style police state supporter.

1. I'm glad there's a limit.
2. Why would you condone government intervention in private transportation but not extend it to public. That would be backwards logic.

[Kathianne]

1. I'm glad there's a limit.
2. Why would you condone government intervention in private transportation but not extend it to public. That would be backwards logic.

Are you saying it's possible that terrorists might hit subways, (7/11 England)? Really, the issue isn't security, I think any sane person agrees that steps need to be taken regarding such. The real issue is TSA sucks, because their mandate sucks and they are embracing the suck.

They need to be profiling, whether in airports or regarding trucking. They need to be using smart tech, which they aren't. Instead they are humiliating many, especially those with disabilities, primarily the elderly.

[ConHog]

1. I'm glad there's a limit.
2. Why would you condone government intervention in private transportation but not extend it to public. That would be backwards logic.

Because I think local law enforcement can do the job in those area.No local law enforcement has jurisdiction or the budget to do what the TSA does though.

[ConHog]

Are you saying it's possible that terrorists might hit subways, (7/11 England)? Really, the issue isn't security, I think any sane person agrees that steps need to be taken regarding such. The real issue is TSA sucks, because their mandate sucks and they are embracing the suck.

They need to be profiling, whether in airports or regarding trucking. They need to be using smart tech, which they aren't. Instead they are humiliating many, especially those with disabilities, primarily the elderly.

No shit they DO need to be profiling, they aren't allowed to though. You can thank the PC crowd for that. You don't think they would rather profile then do the random thing?

[fj1200]

Because I think local law enforcement can do the job in those area.No local law enforcement has jurisdiction or the budget to do what the TSA does though.

But that's not your argument... or is it now? It's easy to have jurisdiction and budget when Congress just declares it to be.

[Kathianne]

No shit they DO need to be profiling, they aren't allowed to though. You can thank the PC crowd for that. You don't think they would rather profile then do the random thing?

No, I don't think they'd rather be profiling. I do not think most TSA staff are capable of thinking on their own, which is why they were hired.

[ConHog]

No, I don't think they'd rather be profiling. I do not think most TSA staff are capable of thinking on their own, which is why they were hired.

I think you are probably correct. I didn't mean the drones at the airport, they don't decide anything. I mean the upper level people, and yes they WOULD rather be profiling. Profiling is an absolute known police technique and has been for thousands of years, but oh no we can't profile for Muslims here.

[ConHog]

But that's not your argument... or is it now? It's easy to have jurisdiction and budget when Congress just declares it to be.

How do you know it's not my argument? The only thing I've argued is that it is my opinion that the TSA should do the security at airports and that the searches are constitutional. I've never given ANY suggestion as to WHY I think the TSA should be the governjment agency doing the searches , until now that is.

My questioon to you is this, if you feel it's a waste of money, and/or unconstitutional for the TSA to be doing the searches, why would you be okay with local law enforcement doing it? Don't agree with incorporation?

[Kathianne]

I think you are probably correct. I didn't mean the drones at the airport, they don't decide anything. I mean the upper level people, and yes they WOULD rather be profiling. Profiling is an absolute known police technique and has been for thousands of years, but oh no we can't profile for Muslims here.

You might be shocked, but I actually got whom you were referring to in the first go round. They are cogs. In a machine. They do NOT think. It's not their place.The 'upper level people' are more the cogs in machine than those at the airports. You get that, right? If yes, explain. If 'no', points for honesty.

[ConHog]

You might be shocked, but I actually got whom you were referring to in the first go round. They are cogs. In a machine. They do NOT think. It's not their place.The 'upper level people' are more the cogs in machine than those at the airports. You get that, right? If yes, explain. If 'no', points for honesty.

Of course they are cogs in the machine, and the fact that they don't get to run security the way they want proves it. IF they had their druthers, they would profile, but those decisions are made outside the TSA and they are told what to do.

It's how the alphabet agencies operate. I seen it all the time with the DEA guys I worked with. They would KNOW that something would work in the field and some politician in a suit would decide differently and that was that. Rocking the boat meant losing your job.And we all know that politicians don't make decisions based off of common sense.

[Kathianne]

Of course they are cogs in the machine, and the fact that they don't get to run security the way they want proves it. IF they had their druthers, they would profile, but those decisions are made outside the TSA and they are told what to do.

It's how the alphabet agencies operate. I seen it all the time with the DEA guys I worked with. They would KNOW that something would work in the field and some politician in a suit would decide differently and that was that. Rocking the boat meant losing your job.And we all know that politicians don't make decisions based off of common sense.

And you support that, right? It's what you've been posting in favor of since you came here years, make that months ago. Really, has it only been 5 months? Seems way longer. Honesty should compel you to agree that what the government wants from TSA is good for USA. That has been your position from the beginning, middle, and end.

[fj1200]

How do you know it's not my argument? The only thing I've argued is that it is my opinion that the TSA should do the security at airports and that the searches are constitutional. I've never given ANY suggestion as to WHY I think the TSA should be the governjment agency doing the searches , until now that is.

My questioon to you is this, if you feel it's a waste of money, and/or unconstitutional for the TSA to be doing the searches, why would you be okay with local law enforcement doing it? Don't agree with incorporation?

Honestly, your argument is hard to follow because you said that Airlines and Cruise ships aren't public so that's where the TSA should be and you wouldn't condone their involvement in public transportation. That opens up wide the avenues where the exact threat to far more people lies. Local law enforcement and budget were nowhere near your opening statement.

Your question? Who said I would be OK with the locals doing it? Besides, I don't think any cruise ships are going to crash into a high rise.

[ConHog]

Honestly, your argument is hard to follow because you said that Airlines and Cruise ships aren't public so that's where the TSA should be and you wouldn't condone their involvement in public transportation. That opens up wide the avenues where the exact threat to far more people lies. Local law enforcement and budget were nowhere near your opening statement.

Your question? Who said I would be OK with the locals doing it? Besides, I don't think any cruise ships are going to crash into a high rise.

Actually I said nothing about public transportation DJ. What I did say was that I dont see a need for the tea on anything other than airlines and cruise ships. And like you I'm skeptical about needing them to screen cruise ship passengers. I wouldn't fee the same Eben if were private subways they were talking about.

I feel the the airlines are a special case requiring a special response. And that should be the limit.

[ConHog]

And you support that, right? It's what you've been posting in favor of since you came here years, make that months ago. Really, has it only been 5 months? Seems way longer. Honesty should compel you to agree that what the government wants from TSA is good for USA. That has been your position from the beginning, middle, and end.

What does how long I've been posting here have to do with the price of tea in china?


And in fact you're wrong. Go rear my posts I have all along said that changes should be made and that profiling and such should be done

[fj1200]

Cruise ships and airlines are not public transportation, and ThAT is the only place I would condone the TSA being involved and have stated as such.


Actually I said nothing about public transportation DJ. What I did say was that I dont see a need for the tea on anything other than airlines and cruise ships. And like you I'm skeptical about needing them to screen cruise ship passengers. I wouldn't fee the same Eben if were private subways they were talking about.

I feel the the airlines are a special case requiring a special response. And that should be the limit.

By extension of logic you did; the opposite of NOT public is public.

[ConHog]

By extension of logic you did; the opposite of NOT public is public.


IF that is how you wish to read it, maybe you know better than I do what I believe though.

[fj1200]

IF that is how you wish to read it, maybe you know better than I do what I believe though.

:shrug: Just going by what you post.

[ConHog]

:shrug: Just going by what you post.

Fine, then go by what I post. At NO point did I say that any and all public transportation should be protected by the TSA.

[fj1200]

Fine, then go by what I post. At NO point did I say that any and all public transportation should be protected by the TSA.

A. What else would I go by?
B. My God man; I, at no point, stated that you did...


1. I'm glad there's a limit.
2. Why would you condone government intervention in private transportation but not extend it to public. That would be backwards logic.

... only that you're condoning intrusion into the private sphere while not extending it to the public.

[LuvRPgrl]

What a fail..
what the heck is that?



Cruise ships and airlines are not public transportation.

I dont think I ever said it was
,
and ThAT is the only place I would condone the TSA being involved and have stated as such..
well, since I was talking about a police state, then you must not condone any policing agency or govt agency to be screening passengers on any public transportation



Oh unless of course you would like us to believe that I am not who you were referring to as a nazi style police state supporter.

Its always so much fun following your posts and seeing you stumble all over yourself.
By the way, quite a few typos in this thread, you been drinkin?

[ConHog]

what the heck is that?




I dont think I ever said it was
,
well, since I was talking about a police state, then you must not condone any policing agency or govt agency to be screening passengers on any public transportation




Its always so much fun following your posts and seeing you stumble all over yourself.
By the way, quite a few typos in this thread, you been drinkin?


No , I was posting from my new Droid. I haven't quite gotten used to it yet. Thanks grammar Nazi.

[LuvRPgrl]

No , I was posting from my new Droid. I haven't quite gotten used to it yet. Thanks grammar Nazi.

It was a question.
Speaking of nazi's, (truly the pot calling the kettle black when you do it)
you didnt say anything about all police agencies being allowed to do screening, searches.
I guess you cant just make something up about that one...

[ConHog]

It was a question.
Speaking of nazi's, (truly the pot calling the kettle black when you do it)
you didnt say anything about all police agencies being allowed to do screening, searches.
I guess you cant just make something up about that one...

That is possible, or perhaps I just missed it, what are you saying about agencies and searches? Got a question for me?

[logroller]

No , I was posting from my new Droid. I haven't quite gotten used to it yet. Thanks grammar Nazi.

Ugh. I can't stand posting from a smart phone. It works for quick responses, but copy and pasting, editing--forget it.

[ConHog]

Ugh. I can't stand posting from a smart phone. It works for quick responses, but copy and pasting, editing--forget it.

This one has an annoying auto correct feature to. UGH it will turn the simplest misspellings into a word that isn't even close to what you mean if you're not careful.

[ConHog]

A. What else would I go by?
B. My God man; I, at no point, stated that you did...



... only that you're condoning intrusion into the private sphere while not extending it to the public.

An intruder isn't someone who the people who own the property usually are happy to work with. The airlines don't seem to be complaining.

Cue the "that's because they don't want to pay for the security" card.


LOL

[LuvRPgrl]

That is possible, or perhaps I just missed it, what are you saying about agencies and searches? Got a question for me?

yea, its in the post you just quoted above.

[fj1200]

An intruder isn't someone who the people who own the property usually are happy to work with. The airlines don't seem to be complaining.

Cue the "that's because they don't want to pay for the security" card.


LOL

Why would they? The $10BB payout in the TSA bill didn't hurt either.

[revelarts]

An intruder isn't someone who the people who own the property usually are happy to work with. The airlines don't seem to be complaining.

Cue the "that's because they don't want to pay for the security" card.


LOL


Why would they? The $10BB payout in the TSA bill didn't hurt either.
ANd Con you keep repeating that the "the airlines don't have a problem" with it. I've point this out before but you conveniently ignored it at least twice now. your wrong. Some have complained, (maybe they need to go to the media) and have wanted to do security themselves and many where going to ditch the TSA and start but the gov't said -no you don't, we are not going to allow you to anymore. - so the airlines decided to do as you imply so many times, that is, when the gov't speaks, STFU and get in line.


TSA shuts door on private airport screening program

"Washington (CNN) -- A program that allows airports to replace government screeners with private screeners is being brought to a standstill, just a month after the Transportation Security Administration said it was "neutral" on the program.

TSA chief John Pistole said Friday he has decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports, saying he does not see any advantage to it.

Though little known, the Screening Partnership Program allowed airports to replace government screeners with private contractors who wear TSA-like uniforms, meet TSA standards and work under TSA oversight. Among the airports that have "opted out" of government screening are San Francisco and Kansas City.

The push to "opt out" gained attention in December amid the fury over the TSA's enhanced pat downs, which some travelers called intrusive.

Rep. John Mica, a Republican from Florida, wrote a letter encouraging airports to privatize their airport screeners, saying they would be more responsive to the public.

At that time, the TSA said it neither endorsed nor opposed private screening.

"If airports chose this route, we are going to work with them to do it," a TSA spokesman said in late December.

But on Friday, the TSA denied an application by Springfield-Branson Airport in Missouri to privatize its checkpoint workforce, and in a statement, Pistole indicated other applications likewise will be denied.

"I examined the contractor screening program and decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports as I do not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so at this time," Pistole said."
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/01/29/tsa.private/



He said airports that currently use contractor screening will continue to be allowed to...



for your safety that's all

aviation online magazine
http://avstop.com/march_2011/tsa_coo..._screening.htm (http://avstop.com/march_2011/tsa_cooked_the_books_on_costs_federal_vs_private_s creening.htm)

TSA Cooked The Books For Years On Costs, Federal Vs Private Screening
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a letter to Transportation Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-FL) that confirms the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has used faulty data and withheld information when evaluating and comparing the costs of the all-federal screening model and an alternative federal-private screening program.

The Screening Partnership Program was established in the Aviation Transportation Security Act (ATSA) after September 11, 2001, to enable airport authorities to “opt-out” of all-federal screening and instead use private screening contractors under federal standards, supervision and oversight. Previously, TSA has misleadingly claimed that the cost of the privatized screening program is at least 17 percent higher than the cost of using screeners who are TSA employees.

“In essence, TSA cooked the books to try to eliminate the federal-private screening program,” Mica said. “GAO found that TSA ignored critical data relating to costs. In fact, according to TSA’s own revised cost study, the cost differential between the two screening models is closer to three percent, likely within the margin of error,” Mica said.

“And that still doesn’t account for various other ignored factors, including the cost taxpayers incur from TSA’s high attrition rate and the full cost of TSA’s bloated and unnecessary bureaucratic overhead. “I am investigating the full cost differential between the two screening models, and I believe the federal-private program model will prove to be less expensive and provide the best model for U.S. aviation security,” Mica said.

TSA has only accounted for a fraction of their personnel located at privatized airports, which result in duplicative costs that still have not been factored into estimates. Mica also said the federal-private screening model, through previous GAO evaluations, has performed significantly better than or equal to the all-government model. ...


...“I have also asked GAO to continue to review what other factors gave the all-government model a cost advantage. It is my intent to make certain that TSA cannot arbitrarily deny any future application from an airport to participate in the private screening program. “I am confident that the private sector can not only perform better, but do so at a lower cost to the taxpayers,” Mica added.

[LuvRPgrl]

ANd Con you keep repeating that the "the airlines don't have a problem" with it. I've point this out before but you conveniently ignored it at least twice now. your wrong. Some have complained, (maybe they need to go to the media) and have wanted to do security themselves and many where going to ditch the TSA and start but the gov't said -no you don't, we are not going to allow you to anymore. - so the airlines decided to do as you imply so many times, that is, when the gov't speaks, STFU and get in line.

SOME PEOPLE think if "they" say it, its true.

[ConHog]

SOME PEOPLE think if "they" say it, its true.

Shut the fuck up. Seriously. I don't defend my opinions on here any stronger than you or others do. Suck a big back of dicks if you can't deal with that reality.

[LuvRPgrl]

Shut the fuck up. Seriously. I don't defend my opinions on here any stronger than you or others do. Suck a big back of dicks if you can't deal with that reality.

Then quit lying,or at least respond to Rev's post.
But you are a liar, and thats why I hit your hot button. hahahhah
Not to hard to piss you off I guess.

[ConHog]

Then quit lying,or at least respond to Rev's post.
But you are a liar, and thats why I hit your hot button. hahahhah
Not to hard to piss you off I guess.


NM

[Jeff]

This one has an annoying auto correct feature to. UGH it will turn the simplest misspellings into a word that isn't even close to what you mean if you're not careful.


:laugh: I have been complaining about that for a while now, example , I was talking to someone about the gully (we use to hang there as kids ) and the phone posted Gillette, now I am sure the woman I was talking to is thinking dang after all these years he is still hanging and doing what we did in the gully :laugh: