TSA mess and the police

[kaytieeldr]

Only two people?

Well, I don't know if I was one of the two,but my exact statement was, "I don't care"

 

[kaytieeldr]

I will say there is always a way to make a fast buck.

Sigh... It's not 'a way to make a fast buck'. You don't just pay the money, do the iris scan, submit your fingerprints and voilà! You're cleared to skip security. The Clear program involves intensive - and so expensive - background checks.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Sigh... It's not 'a way to make a fast buck'. You don't just pay the money, do the iris scan, submit your fingerprints and voilà! You're cleared to skip security. The Clear program involves intensive - and so expensive - background checks.

After the ramp up, it is a matter of passing through. I don't think this would be introduced if there wasn't profit to be made from it.

 

[kaytieeldr]

It's being REstarted - not introduced. Likely, the assumption is frequent travelers (the market all along) might be interested. They weren't, the first time around. It's still expensive to do the scans, the fingerprinting, the background checks, the file maintenance...

Naturally it's not cost-effective for the typical leisure traveler; on the other hand, there's no valid reason why anyone not using the service - or the government - should subsidize it.

 

[C.Ann]

Well, I don't know if I was one of the two,but my exact statement was, "I don't care"

---------------------

Well - thanks for stepping up!

--------------------------------------------------

Not directed at you - just a general comment:

I respect what other people find acceptable and unacceptable for "them" - in return, it would be nice if that same respect was shown for those of us on the "other" side of the issue.. These are very personal decisions - based on a variety of issues and/or needs - so we're never going to get everyone to agree to the exact same thing..

Is it worth tearing each other apart for? I don't think so.. Many of the people who have posted on this thread have a very different take on this issue than I do - and we have tossed our opinions back and forth on this thread since it started - but once I leave this TSA thread, I don't carry the disagreements on this particular thread to "other" threads.. It's okay to "agree to disagree" on this thread and then turn around give that same person you were disagreeing with here a pat on the back, a hug, a prayer, a "good luck", or whatever on another thread.. Just a few minutes ago I was sitting here thinking to myself, I don't know one single solitary person in the world that I agree with on everything and still, we're able to remain close and have these types of conversations on an adult level - without stooping to some of the things we've all witnessed on this thread.. (And yes - I'm including myself in that group too..)

So once again - let's just agree to disagree - and try to keep the temperment of this thread as civil as possible..

Yes? No? Maybe?

 

[Anjelica]

Flew out yesterday from STL to Baltimore - I actually got into the one of the two lines that folks were being picked from to go through the scanner. I was really really really hoping they would pick me to go through it but alas I wasn't one who was chosen. I will say since my Gate was right across from security I watched and listened pretty closesly (for a little over an hour) on the folks getting pulled to go through the scanner, their reactions and if they had full body patdowns. Below were my observations (note I hadn't flown since the full body pathdowns became more "invasive" or more in mainstream media)

- They were VERY random in who they picked out to go through the full body scanners. Old, young, white, black, traveling with family, single, etc. I thought the randomness of it was done "very well".

- I did not see or hear one person decline to go through the full body scanner.

- I saw three people requiring the full-body patdown (appeared they all still had some metal on them when they went through the scanner) - now keep in mind I didn't interview them to get their opinion but in watching first hand the full body patdowns - they seemed quite harmless compared to ones I regularly get overseas. I also didn't see/hear the three people who received the full body patdowns complain, grimmace or do anything else to at least show their disdain for the full-body pathdown (they weren't laughing their butts off but you catch my drift).

The one thing that DID bug me about the whole scenario was how easy it was to either get into a line that would eventually feed into possibly being chosen to go through the scanner OR the "old" metal detectors. I thought to myself how easy it would have been if I just jumped into the line with the "old" metal detectors if I really did have something to hide so as to not go through the full body scanner. There was no one there directing folks to which line they should go - you really could chose with no issue.

 

[DMRick]

I respect what other people find acceptable and unacceptable for "them" - in return, it would be nice if that same respect was shown for those of us on the "other" side of the issue..

I can only answer for myself (and what I'm reading, which I have thought to have a lot of respect) to each of these points. I haven't seen anyone like the above . I must 'read' the notes differently than you do. I have the utmost respect for those who feel they can't go through the scanner and pat downs as has the other posts I've read. It doesn't mean I have to agree, as I don't, just like they don't agree with me. I think this thread has been darn respectable, and people have seen both sides. They just don't agree (either side) and there is nothing wrong with that.

Is it worth tearing each other apart for? I don't think so..

I haven't seen that at all. Even the private emails that have been shared with those that I don't agree with and vice versa have been very nice. I haven't seen any tearing apart. Again, maybe it's because I'm not reading the emails that way. I assume most people are not taking the other persons opinion personal, but as their opinion. Because it is a discussion, it is going to be going back and forth on why each person feels their opinion works for them.

I don't carry the disagreements on this particular thread to "other" threads..

Again, maybe it's the threads I visit, but I haven't seen any where people that disagreed on this thread then carried it to another thread. For myself, most times I don't even look at the names, so that makes it easy to not carry it over. And I can't see any reason to.

So once again - let's just agree to disagree - and try to keep the temperment of this thread as civil as possible..

Again..I've been reading on this thread, that people have been saying it's been very civil. It is hard to read expression on the internet, so maybe some are reading that people aren't civil, but since this thread is still open, I think that points to it being very civil indeed.

 

[DMRick]

The one thing that DID bug me about the whole scenario was how easy it was to either get into a line that would eventually feed into possibly being chosen to go through the scanner OR the "old" metal detectors. I thought to myself how easy it would have been if I just jumped into the line with the "old" metal detectors if I really did have something to hide so as to not go through the full body scanner. There was no one there directing folks to which line they should go - you really could chose with no issue.

Thanks for your update. My son chose to go through the new scanner again, but just because that line was shorter. I thought that was strange too.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Well - thanks for stepping up!

Gladly

but once I leave this TSA thread, I don't carry the disagreements on this particular thread to "other" threads..

I hope that's true of everyone. There are posters on this thread who agree with me (okay, with whom I agree) on other threads/topics.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Gate was right across from security I watched and listened pretty closesly (for a little over an hour) on the folks getting pulled to go through the scanner, their reactions and if they had full body patdowns. Below were my observations (note I hadn't flown since the full body pathdowns became more "invasive" or more in mainstream media)

Thanks very much for an impartial report on your observations. I won't requote the portion DMRick did, but possibly when more AITs are in use, there won't be that choice?

 

[hambirg]

Flew out yesterday from STL to Baltimore - I actually got into the one of the two lines that folks were being picked from to go through the scanner. I was really really really hoping they would pick me to go through it but alas I wasn't one who was chosen. I will say since my Gate was right across from security I watched and listened pretty closesly (for a little over an hour) on the folks getting pulled to go through the scanner, their reactions and if they had full body patdowns. Below were my observations (note I hadn't flown since the full body pathdowns became more "invasive" or more in mainstream media)

- They were VERY random in who they picked out to go through the full body scanners. Old, young, white, black, traveling with family, single, etc. I thought the randomness of it was done "very well".

- I did not see or hear one person decline to go through the full body scanner.

- I saw three people requiring the full-body patdown (appeared they all still had some metal on them when they went through the scanner) - now keep in mind I didn't interview them to get their opinion but in watching first hand the full body patdowns - they seemed quite harmless compared to ones I regularly get overseas. I also didn't see/hear the three people who received the full body patdowns complain, grimmace or do anything else to at least show their disdain for the full-body pathdown (they weren't laughing their butts off but you catch my drift).

The one thing that DID bug me about the whole scenario was how easy it was to either get into a line that would eventually feed into possibly being chosen to go through the scanner OR the "old" metal detectors. I thought to myself how easy it would have been if I just jumped into the line with the "old" metal detectors if I really did have something to hide so as to not go through the full body scanner. There was no one there directing folks to which line they should go - you really could chose with no issue.

I'm sorry. .. but that IS exactly the problem! Why should these things be totally random? How on earth is that making any of us MORE secure? It's not! It like poking a stick at trying to find a needle in a haystack. It's completely stupid!

I said it earlier in this thread. . .we are being reactive instead of proactive. The people wishing to do us harm are already 10 steps ahead. Somebody already keistered a bomb. . .do we all need to have random cavity searches now? Because if we are REALLY talking about security and real threats, then we should. The terrorists will simply find different mechanisms. . .this is all a farce!

Has the TSA ever thwarted a terrorist trying to get on a flight? NO!

Is the cargo, which would be much easier to hide a bomb in that could still bring down a flight, all being screened? No!

Have the FBI uncovered other terrorists plots? Yes
Did any of them have anything to do with airplanes, flights or airports? No!

Does it make any logical sense to make pilots, who upon getting on the airplane will be given a loaded gun and who are flying the plane and free to crash it at any time, go through these ridiculous procedures? No!

Are these TSA agents trained in psychology and criminal behavioral analysis? No!

Are any of them experts in terrorism and national security? No!

Are they a bunch of mall cops picking whomever they choose out of line to go through this just based on virtually nothing. . .completely randomness? Yes

Does that make any sense or make any of us safer? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[kaytieeldr]

I said it earlier in this thread. . .we are being reactive instead of proactive. The people wishing to do us harm are already 10 steps ahead. Somebody already keistered a bomb

On a plane? Did it work? I hadn't heard either. Yes, I heard someone made an assassination attempt by hiding explosive in his rectum, but I wasn't aware it had anything to do with a flight.

Has the TSA ever thwarted a terrorist trying to get on a flight? NO!

Source? Nope, I absolutely don't have any source that says the TSA has, but I've seen this claim thrown around multiple times over the last few weeks, and I'm curious how everybody 'knows'. Simply because it's not publicized doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Not saying it has or hasn't.

Does it make any logical sense to make pilots, who upon getting on the airplane will be given a loaded gun and who are flying the plane and free to crash it at any time, go through these ridiculous procedures? No!

So stop requiring pilots to be screened. How long before terrorists - already 'ten steps ahead of us' - create fake uniforms and identification?

Are these TSA agents trained in psychology and criminal behavioral analysis? No!

Again, source? TSA officers come from a wide range of backgrounds; while again, I also don't have any source to refute the quoted statement. I'm just curious how the quoted posted 'knows' this.

Are any of them experts in terrorism and national security? No!

Again, relates to the job description. While it's likely the quoted poster is correct, these would not be requirements of the position, would they? Common sense.

Are they a bunch of mall cops picking whomever they choose out of line to go through this just based on virtually nothing. . .completely randomness? Yes

Oh, please. Now you're just being aggravating and petty. No, they're not a bunch of mall cops. The standards are higher, the requirements are different, the work environment is a whole heck of a lot more stressful. When was the last time mall cops as a group were called gropers, molesters, even rapists, simply for following the standard requirements of their jobs?

 

[bicker]

Well, since that article I posted (and the comments from all the people, which sound much like some of the comments on this board) was in August, it was known. They may not have sung it from the ceilings, or highly advertised it, but it was known. I knew before Nov 1.

Precisely. More fodder for the contention that this is all just a matter of critics doing whatever they can to manipulate public opinion using fear, uncertainty and doubt rather than reasonably petitioning government for a redress of grievances via well-established and rational procedures.

The policy received the proper review and consideration as per the standards of our society.

My BIG concern is with the employees of TSA.

Are you as concerned about CDC employees? IRS employees? etc. Your pet peeve may be the specific work that TSA employees do, but many government employees (and employees in the private sector) have access to things and interact with the general public in ways that some other people might consider with a critical eye, in the way you view TSA employees. With the government employees, at least, we can be sure that there is some kind of process put in place to determine what their qualifications and standards should be, and a process put in place to administer those qualifications and standards.

I wonder how well the civil rights movement would have worked if instead of stressing equality, love and non violence we would have run around screaming all white people are racist KKK members lynching us and all white men in the south are raping black women. Even though those incidents may have happened that is not what we made the agenda about.

Yes, very true. The difference it seems is that the civil rights movement was about motivating society to change its values, and so appealing to people in a rational manner made sense. Here, with all the hyperbole, exaggeration, lack of perspective, and wildly speculative fostering of fear, uncertainty and doubt, it seems clear that it is more about getting society to kowtow to the personal perspective of those upset than any kind of participation in the process to shape society's values. Indeed, fear is perhaps involved in another way - these tactics by the critics may be motivated by their fear that so many Americans are not only indifferent to their concerns, but trending away from their concerns. So they view reasonable efforts as futile, resulting in their motivation to pursue outlandish approaches, as you outlined.

It is a shame that a percent of people may now feel they can fly. This isn't new. People on regular oxygen also can't fly. People who can't get down the aisle into a seat, because they can't walk can't fly. People who are claustrophobic can't fly. People with severe ear problems can't fly. People who can't afford passports (or don't feel they should have to have one) can't fly out of the country.

I believe the last time the "we can't fly anymore" chant was raised was when Southwest started charging passengers of size for a second seat. You're correct that this kind of exhortation is not new.

Oh, please. Now you're just being aggravating and petty. No, they're not a bunch of mall cops. The standards are higher, the requirements are different, the work environment is a whole heck of a lot more stressful. When was the last time mall cops as a group were called gropers, molesters, even rapists, simply for following the standard requirements of their jobs?

Yes, good point. The fact that the critics had resorted to attacking the people doing a very hard job, and not attacking them by saying that there aren't qualifications and standards applied (because there are) but rather just trying to make it sound like there aren't (again: the intention being to foster unreasonable fear, uncertainty and doubt), was a clear indication that all they were doing was waving a careless bludgeon around.

 

[Anjelica]

Thanks very much for an impartial report on your observations. I won't requote the portion DMRick did, but possibly when more AITs are in use, there won't be that choice?

I hope in the future there won't be a choice - hence taking advantage of any "benefit" the full body scanners have.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Again, source? TSA officers come from a wide range of backgrounds; while again, I also don't have any source to refute the quoted statement. I'm just curious how the quoted posted 'knows' this.

Again, relates to the job description. While it's likely the quoted poster is correct, these would not be requirements of the position, would they? Common sense.

Oh, please. Now you're just being aggravating and petty. No, they're not a bunch of mall cops. The standards are higher, the requirements are different, the work environment is a whole heck of a lot more stressful. When was the last time mall cops as a group were called gropers, molesters, even rapists, simply for following the standard requirements of their jobs?

I share the same opinion. TSA agents are unarmed security guards whose jobs do not merit the experience nor paygrade commensurate with anything more than a mall cop would require except the background checks that come with applying for a federal position.

I worked for a govt contractor. While Imhad a college degree, MOST in my position did not. I did not have clearances as my contract did not require it, but some of my non-degrees counterparts did.

Here is an article that summarizes the qualifications necessary to apply to be a screener. Mind you, it is a biased article looking to nitpick, but I easily found the same information by googling. This was just more in story form, so I chose it.

It does not take a Rocket scientist to see that they are not hiring people with extensive expertise in behavioral analysis. They are not hiring detectives. They are not hiring anyone special that makes me feel any safer. If they had the secret service running the show, I would feel better.

But they aren't. They are seeking minimally qualified individuals. We can call to take that some of thes folks might have certain skills, but that is not the hiring pool they are Pulling from.

There are also degrees of background checks. The hire you go, the more you submit to. I'm not privy to which clearance level he standard everyday TSA agent obtains to do their jOb. But unless It is a top level secret clearance (which I doubt), it doesn't mean that each candidate is on the up and up.

Anyway---since it was brought up, I did look into it. There seems to not be much difference from a traditional security guard except the ability to be hired by the dept of homeland security.

No time to google the training they receive. Perhaps someone else can look into that aspect.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Someone up thread asked about lawsuits. Interesting reading:

Harvard Law Students Sue TSA
Federal suit claims "nude body scanners" and enhanced pat-downs are unconstitutional

By Jenny Paul and Joey Seiler

Published: Wednesday, December 1, 2010

..."The lawsuit claims the mandatory screening techniques violate the students' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the use of either screening method without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and a declaratory judgment stating that mandatory screening using these techniques is unconstitutional where probable cause or reasonable suspicion do not exist."...

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/harvard-law-students-sue-tsa-1.1813567



TSA pat-downs deserve opposition, may be unconstitutional

By Jessica Wood

Published: Wednesday, December 1, 2010

"New methods of security implemented at airports across the nation are being described as invasive and invasive by passengers, but a few public organizations are going as far as to say these new procedures are even unconstitutional, according to a blog by The Washington Post.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit claiming the new full-body scanners and pat-downs are unconstitutional and other countries have found more appropriate and effective ways to screen passengers while permitting them some form of privacy."...

http://www.daily49er.com/opinion/tsa-pat-downs-deserve-opposition-may-be-unconstitutional-1.2418568

 

[skater]

I'm sorry. .. but that IS exactly the problem! Why should these things be totally random? How on earth is that making any of us MORE secure? It's not! It like poking a stick at trying to find a needle in a haystack. It's completely stupid!

I said it earlier in this thread. . .we are being reactive instead of proactive. The people wishing to do us harm are already 10 steps ahead. Somebody already keistered a bomb. . .do we all need to have random cavity searches now? Because if we are REALLY talking about security and real threats, then we should. The terrorists will simply find different mechanisms. . .this is all a farce!

Has the TSA ever thwarted a terrorist trying to get on a flight? NO!

Is the cargo, which would be much easier to hide a bomb in that could still bring down a flight, all being screened? No!

Have the FBI uncovered other terrorists plots? Yes
Did any of them have anything to do with airplanes, flights or airports? No!

Does it make any logical sense to make pilots, who upon getting on the airplane will be given a loaded gun and who are flying the plane and free to crash it at any time, go through these ridiculous procedures? No!

Are these TSA agents trained in psychology and criminal behavioral analysis? No!

Are any of them experts in terrorism and national security? No!

Are they a bunch of mall cops picking whomever they choose out of line to go through this just based on virtually nothing. . .completely randomness? Yes

Does that make any sense or make any of us safer? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with all of this. I am particularly interested in the cargo. If that's not being fully screened, it feels extremely stupid to put people through the invasive screenings that nobody enjoys.

 

[skater]

Someone up thread asked about lawsuits. Interesting reading:

Harvard Law Students Sue TSA
Federal suit claims "nude body scanners" and enhanced pat-downs are unconstitutional

By Jenny Paul and Joey Seiler

Published: Wednesday, December 1, 2010

..."The lawsuit claims the mandatory screening techniques violate the students' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the use of either screening method without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and a declaratory judgment stating that mandatory screening using these techniques is unconstitutional where probable cause or reasonable suspicion do not exist."...

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/harvard-law-students-sue-tsa-1.1813567



TSA pat-downs deserve opposition, may be unconstitutional

By Jessica Wood

Published: Wednesday, December 1, 2010

"New methods of security implemented at airports across the nation are being described as invasive and invasive by passengers, but a few public organizations are going as far as to say these new procedures are even unconstitutional, according to a blog by The Washington Post.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit claiming the new full-body scanners and pat-downs are unconstitutional and other countries have found more appropriate and effective ways to screen passengers while permitting them some form of privacy."...

http://www.daily49er.com/opinion/tsa-pat-downs-deserve-opposition-may-be-unconstitutional-1.2418568

Very cool!

 

[olwyngdh]

Has the TSA ever thwarted a terrorist trying to get on a flight? NO!

Is the cargo, which would be much easier to hide a bomb in that could still bring down a flight, all being screened? No!

Have the FBI uncovered other terrorists plots? Yes
Did any of them have anything to do with airplanes, flights or airports? No!

Does it make any logical sense to make pilots, who upon getting on the airplane will be given a loaded gun and who are flying the plane and free to crash it at any time, go through these ridiculous procedures? No!

Are these TSA agents trained in psychology and criminal behavioral analysis? No!

Are any of them experts in terrorism and national security? No!

Are they a bunch of mall cops picking whomever they choose out of line to go through this just based on virtually nothing. . .completely randomness? Yes

Does that make any sense or make any of us safer? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How do you know all this? What is your security clearance? What is your profession? What is your need to know, even if you have a security clearance?

Do you really believe that those who really know the answers to these questions release all the answers? Do you really believe they should? Did you ever think about National Security? Have you thought about releasing some of those answers could increase danger?

I have been a military spouse for twenty years. I have learned that there are many times and many things, even at times concerning where my husband is and what he is doing, that I don't have clearance or need to know. For example, he was gone for three weeks last summer that I still have no idea where he was or what he was doing. I don't have a need to know.

Sometimes we just have to accept that we don't have all the answers. We don't have to like it, but we do need to acknowledge it. Remember the saying from WWII? Loose lips sink ships. As spouses we are taught not to talk, even with each other, about anything that could risk operational security. Those with the actual clearances and need to know have even more reason to keep their mouths shut. Security leaks are bad. Sometimes very bad. Sometimes getting people killed. Personally, I don't think your curiosity or feelings of entitlement are worth my husband's, or any soldier's, life.

 

[C.Ann]

Flew out yesterday from STL to Baltimore - I actually got into the one of the two lines that folks were being picked from to go through the scanner. I was really really really hoping they would pick me to go through it but alas I wasn't one who was chosen. I will say since my Gate was right across from security I watched and listened pretty closesly (for a little over an hour) on the folks getting pulled to go through the scanner, their reactions and if they had full body patdowns. Below were my observations (note I hadn't flown since the full body pathdowns became more "invasive" or more in mainstream media)

- They were VERY random in who they picked out to go through the full body scanners. Old, young, white, black, traveling with family, single, etc. I thought the randomness of it was done "very well".

- I did not see or hear one person decline to go through the full body scanner.

- I saw three people requiring the full-body patdown (appeared they all still had some metal on them when they went through the scanner) - now keep in mind I didn't interview them to get their opinion but in watching first hand the full body patdowns - they seemed quite harmless compared to ones I regularly get overseas. I also didn't see/hear the three people who received the full body patdowns complain, grimmace or do anything else to at least show their disdain for the full-body pathdown (they weren't laughing their butts off but you catch my drift).

The one thing that DID bug me about the whole scenario was how easy it was to either get into a line that would eventually feed into possibly being chosen to go through the scanner OR the "old" metal detectors. I thought to myself how easy it would have been if I just jumped into the line with the "old" metal detectors if I really did have something to hide so as to not go through the full body scanner. There was no one there directing folks to which line they should go - you really could chose with no issue.

Thanks for sharing your good experience.. I hope there will be many more.. But what I wish more than anything is that they devise some way that people with personal/medical issues who can no longer fly since these new measures were put in place won't be ignored and some kind of accomodations can be made for them so they can fly again..

[/B]

I have the utmost respect for those who feel they can't go through the scanner and pat downs as has the other posts I've read. It doesn't mean I have to agree, as I don't, just like they don't agree with me. .

I assume most people are not taking the other persons opinion personal, but as their opinion. Because it is a discussion, it is going to be going back and forth on why each person feels their opinion works for them.

It is hard to read expression on the internet, so maybe some are reading that people aren't civil, but since this thread is still open, I think that points to it being very civil indeed.

I'm glad we can agree on something..

Someone up thread asked about lawsuits. Interesting reading:

Harvard Law Students Sue TSA
Federal suit claims "nude body scanners" and enhanced pat-downs are unconstitutional

By Jenny Paul and Joey Seiler

Published: Wednesday, December 1, 2010

..."The lawsuit claims the mandatory screening techniques violate the students' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the use of either screening method without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and a declaratory judgment stating that mandatory screening using these techniques is unconstitutional where probable cause or reasonable suspicion do not exist."...

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/harvard-law-students-sue-tsa-1.1813567



TSA pat-downs deserve opposition, may be unconstitutional

By Jessica Wood

Published: Wednesday, December 1, 2010

"New methods of security implemented at airports across the nation are being described as invasive and invasive by passengers, but a few public organizations are going as far as to say these new procedures are even unconstitutional, according to a blog by The Washington Post.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit claiming the new full-body scanners and pat-downs are unconstitutional and other countries have found more appropriate and effective ways to screen passengers while permitting them some form of privacy."...

http://www.daily49er.com/opinion/tsa-pat-downs-deserve-opposition-may-be-unconstitutional-1.2418568

Thanks for sharing that.. Very interesting, indeed..

I agree with all of this. I am particularly interested in the cargo. If that's not being fully screened, it feels extremely stupid to put people through the invasive screenings that nobody enjoys.

It certainly does seem like they are ignoring a very large aspect of "screening for safety", doesn't it?