> There was no such premise to begin with. They applied some pressure to some countries which had some effect, others followed suit by following bad precedents set by others.
Your words.
The US has a way of setting bad precedents or pressuring other countries to adopt its inanity, yes. Another reason not to do it here.
And explain to me again why the US would “pressure” countries to increase security on domestic flights? Why would the US care if a propellor plane flying from a literal hut in Manuel Antonio Costa Rica to San Jose has security screenings or a train going from London to Paris had security screenings?
> Look, we need to keep paying the expensive lease on this bear-repelling rock because even though it demonstrably hasn't repelled the actual bears we've encountered, if we didn't have it there might have been thousands of bears, possibly trillions
Because terrorism doesn’t exist anymore and everyone loves America?
> How about this one: How many of them require it to be a government agency? Even in a lot of Europe it's private.
So now you went from “other countries have airports where security isn’t the same” to “it’s private”. What difference does it make?
FWIW: Airports can choose to have private security instead of TSA. The only one that does of any note is SFO.
Even if it is private in the EU, they still follow EU wide security regulations. How does it being private make any difference in your experience?
And even o
> Let's get rid of that too then.
So every single commercial airport in the world has screenings, as well as some domestic foreign train systems (Ibe only been on one internationally) as well as private high speed rail in the US where it isn’t required by law.
Just maybe they know something you don’t know?