Comments on: TSA faces new limits on screening “unrelated to transportation security”

By: Tweets that mention TSA faces new limits on screening “unrelated to transportation security” -- Topsy.com

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:56:19 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by San Antonio, Travel_Tweet. Travel_Tweet said: TSA faces new limits on screening “unrelated to transportation security”: TSA was forced to change their proced.. http://bit.ly/3A9lFR [...]

By: Bruce InCharlotte

Bruce InCharlotte — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:34:56 +0000

The ACLU dropped the ball on this one. They had a clear violation of the TSA’s mission and the Constitution, yet they’ve settled for a “management directive” that is totally unenforceable.

The TSA has actually stopped this guy. http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidRStokes/2009/07/12/the_county_and_the_school_of_hate

And they’ve swung and missed. http://www.gadling.com/2009/10/07/tsa-misses-another-forgotten-loaded-gun/

By: Karen C.

Karen C. — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:40:48 +0000

Commenting on this — “It seems like a major invasion of personal privacy just to get on a plane.” It certainly does, leaving me slightly appalled that the recent “alleged” shooter at Ft. Hood, who was emailing an extremist imam, was dismissed as not serious, while we law-abiding citizens still get our partially used toothpaste confiscated (still bitter about that one) and need to take our jackets, belts and shoes off while getting on a plane. I’m sure there are some instances where terrorists’ activity has been stopped or thwarted thanks to the vigilance of our agencies, but I get the feeling they keep looking backwards at how terrorists have done things, not projecting how they might do something in the future.

By: Hapgood

Hapgood — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:41:08 +0000

So the TSA has yet again reacted to a threat by changing their rules. How can we have any confidence that the screeners at checkpoints will receive proper training on the new rules and implement them correctly and consistently, since they don’t seem capable of doing that for the rules they already have? And will screeners be any more accountable for compliance than they already are (not)?

“The new rules state, ’screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security.’” That sounds rather vague. What stops a screener from “interpreting” the rule to mean that any criminal activity must have some relation to transportation security? I’d say the TSA did its usual masterful job of protecting its blank check by reacting with a cosmetic change that’s sufficient to placate a whining liberal critic but allows them continue doing business exactly as before.

By: John

John — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:19:07 +0000

Charlie …
1. You assume that they haven’t caught any terrorists. What is your source? I seem to remember where they have caught people (Padilla).

2. If your assumption is correct, how isn’t that their actions aren’t causal (ie Terrorists, like the recent escapade in New York City were they guy drove from CO to NYC, are choosing to travel be means other than air because of the security)? I that case, their inspections are having the desired result and keeping terrorist off airplanes.

By: Homer Simpson

Homer Simpson — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:50:54 +0000

Corkscrews are allowed in carry on’s as long as they do not have a knife for cutting foil.