Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer the term "Freedom Fondle".
"Government Grope"
"Totalitarian Touch"
TSA Admits In Leaked Doc: No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US
91–100 of 129 posts
Re: TSA Admits In Leaked Doc: No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By that logic, we should remove security at Fort Knox because it never gets robbed. Airports should have security. Every country has security in their airports. Where it crosses the line are when you have the security preemptively treat you like a criminal, and violate your personhood without justification other than a blanket statement of "terrorists". Security ! always have to = Neo-Fascism. But many people feel…
> Airports should have security. Every country has security in their airports but wait, in your response to me you said that the line people wait on for security checks is just as big a terrorist hazard as the plane itself. How are you not contradicting yourself here? Which is it, we wait on lines for metal detectors or not ?
Security doesn't have to mean inspection lines or profiling.
It could mean guards walking around, like in an apartment complex or mall. It could mean people watching CCTV.
This could all be done by the airline. They don't want bombings just as much as you or I. The only difference is they don't have an incentive to create a regulation that forces people to subject themselves to embarrassment or harassment.
Where is the TSA's incentive? Justifying their existence. In one hand, you have an anti terrorist, governmental agency, which will always try to justify itself, and on the other you have a necessary expense for the airlines mandated by their public relations and to reduce bad press/events from happening.
Re: TSA Admits In Leaked Doc: No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Terrorists have indeed already done this at Domodedevo airport in Moscow, Russia. By creating giant lines of people at security checkpoint (along with a scattering of federal employees), the TSA has created the perfect target.
Does it matter if you consider employing several vans running into the airport during holiday rush hours? If dangerous is present at any moment in time, what do we do? How can we reduce searchable threats? Can we do a scan on entrance to and exit from airport lobby?
We live our lives. Danger will always be present. I could be hit by a car crossing the street from my office to the parking lot. I could be shot in the grocery store near my house.
Sometimes, there is nothing more that you can do. Accept the risk and move on.
Re: TSA Admits In Leaked Doc: No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US
#94I'm a huge critic of the TSA and would be thrilled to see it dismantled, but I always find these kinds of arguments a little intellectually dishonest. It could be that “terrorist threat groups present in the Homeland are not known to be actively plotting against civil aviation targets or airports” because we have scanners in place that deter that kind of threat. Now, I don't believe this is the case, as plenty of res…
The problem is: The TSA and its equivalents around the world have made air travel less secure. Those agencies are mere security theatre designed to serve the political agendas of conservative agitators.
Nude scanners convey messages such as 'We're doing something.' and 'The state is looking out for you.' while they're much more prone to errors and missing actual threats than 'good old-fashioned' airport security.
Defunding and dismantling out-of-control agencies such as the TSA and - while we're at it - the NSA would not only make the world a better but also a safer place.
Moreover, while the US - like most other industrialized countries - struggle with their budget at the same time they have no qualms about spending enormous amounts of money on government agencies that clearly provide no value other than furthering an utterly sinister political agenda.
Re: TSA Admits In Leaked Doc: No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US
#95The GAO regularly audits the TSA by trying to get firearms and other contraband through security. They consistently get a lot through without the TSA noticing: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-scre...
I read years ago (and can't now find the article) that the TSA screeners didn't really care about catching these guns. The TSA tested them by slipping one (or a few) fake guns into luggage. If I recall, a screener said something along the lines of "we don't have to catch all guns. We only have to catch those guns." Sigh.
He's right.
When there is no real threat, it doesn't matter how incompetent they are. As long as nothing bad happens you can't tell the difference between effective security and incompetence. You can tell on the micro-scale like those test weapons, but not on the macro scale where budgeting and oversight decisions are made.
Re: TSA Admits In Leaked Doc: No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
if the TSA were abolished I'm pretty sure the airlines/airports would still have security. I think a majority of US passengers wouldn't be comfortable getting on a plane where there were absolutely no security of any kind up front.
Too bad the government makes that choice. I'd assume that if people, or consumers of travelling via airplane, were as you say, cautious about travel, a free market alternative would be better than the TSA. That said, you're right. But lines, inspections, and "lists", are largerly unnecessary. You have guards walking around, and a federal agent on each plane. All that I'm saying, is that I'd rather not have to subsidi…
well that sounds more like a standard libertarian vs. socialized angle which is IMO a different issue.
I don't see how guards walking around could have much of an impact. if they aren't looking in my bag, I can have anything in there, and once in the confined environment of a plane, I can do a lot before any air marshal shuts it down.
Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror. Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.
Re: TSA Admits In Leaked Doc: No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US
#97I'm a huge critic of the TSA and would be thrilled to see it dismantled, but I always find these kinds of arguments a little intellectually dishonest. It could be that “terrorist threat groups present in the Homeland are not known to be actively plotting against civil aviation targets or airports” because we have scanners in place that deter that kind of threat. Now, I don't believe this is the case, as plenty of res…
the "no active threat" argument by itself doesn't get us very far. By that logic, we should remove security at Fort Knox because it never gets robbed.
Security needs to be proportional to the risk. We know there are plenty of people who would make off with the gold in Fort Knox if they could because hold-ups and bank-robberies happen all the time.
We do know the level of risk that the TSA is defending against is minuscule because of these basic facts:
(1) The TSA is not catching terrorists: No TSA action has ever resulted in a conviction on terrorism related charges. To the best of my knowledge, the only actual arrest on terrorism charges turned out to be completely bogus.[1] Meanwhile they crow about stupid little things like the guy with a funny looking water bottle.[2]
(2) The TSA is not deterring terrorists: Someone bent on spreading terror doesn't just give up because good security scared them off - they find another target. There are all kinds of high-profile soft targets: Shopping malls, the line at the airport, bridges, tunnels, movie theaters, derailing passenger trains, etc. It does not require much imagination to come up with a very long list of easy targets.
But so far we've seen just one effective attack like that - the Boston marathon and it was super easy for those guys to pull off. It is so easy, yet it is a once-in-a-decade event. That is unequivocal evidence that for all intents and purposes nobody with the ability to carry out attacks is actually attacking us.
Given those two facts, we can have very high confidence that the TSA is not providing useful security.
[1] http://www.clickorlando.com/news/TSA-exaggerates-claims-abou...
[2] http://boingboing.net/2008/07/30/tsa-proud-of-confisc.html
Re: TSA Admits In Leaked Doc: No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
the article was specifically about actual plots to attack airplanes: "No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US". And that since there's no evidence of any plots, therefore we don't need a TSA. This is a crappy argument because airplane attacks are known to have occurred in the past without warning. Attack the TSA on their corruptness/ineffectiveness/ineptitude fine, but not based on "nobody wants to atta…
your argument is a strawman: "no evidence => no TSA / no aircraft-boarding security." that is clearly not a rebuttal of the argument that is presented, which is that the TSA has previously presented the existence of terrorist plots against aviation as a reason for sticking their hands down passengers' pants and performing nude scans of passengers. but the TSA's reasons have turned out to be false, so therefore we sho…
Re-reading of the article, I don't see where the TSA claims that known future terrorist plots are the rationale for their actions, though perhaps this is something that was claimed to which this article is referring. My understanding was that the TSA's rationale was based on actual events that have occurred, e.g. 9/11, shoe bomber, underwear bomber, the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plo...) which was the impetus for banning liquids through checkpoints, e.g. these are actual plots that were executed or discovered prior to execution. Using the facts of actual plots is a more compelling argument than claiming "we know of more plots" which turn out to not exist - I'm not seeing that claim being made here.
Re: TSA Admits In Leaked Doc: No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US
#99Perhaps what the actually conclusion one should take from this memo is not that terrorists don't exist, clearly they do, but rather that those terrorists are now focusing on softer targets, because aviation is seen as too difficult. I realize this may be an unpopular opinion, because let's face it the TSA searches are demeaning and some might argue an invasion of privacy. But it seems like a non sequitur to say that…
Take about 60 seconds to think about how, if you were a terrorist tasked with blowing up an airplane, you would do it. Do you really think the TSA would stop you? And if they did, would you really get fewer virgins if you had to use your Plan B of blowing up the security checkpoint with maybe 100 people and a couple dozen federal employees, instead of your intended target?
Or, attack some softer target. And I just love how my post was modded down, no rebuttal because everyone hates the TSA. My assertion still stands, it's far more reasonable to conclude that terrorists have moved on to other targets, as we saw in Kenya, because they have no security and rarely have any armed capability even near by to respond.
No doubt attacking the security line at the airport is a soft target, but no mo where near as soft as a mall. An airport may detect the attacker on the way to the line, you still have to buy a ticket. A mall, no chance. Are the lines a security risk? You bet, it's why I'm glad my GOES account keeps me out of them and thru the quick TSA-Pre line.
But hey, this is all blasphemy anyway, the TSA sucks, Al Qaeda was defeated, and the government desperately wants to keep lying to you so they can look at the outline of someone's body.
Re: TSA Admits In Leaked Doc: No Evidence of Terrorist Plots Against Aviation in US
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too bad the government makes that choice. I'd assume that if people, or consumers of travelling via airplane, were as you say, cautious about travel, a free market alternative would be better than the TSA. That said, you're right. But lines, inspections, and "lists", are largerly unnecessary. You have guards walking around, and a federal agent on each plane. All that I'm saying, is that I'd rather not have to subsidi…
well that sounds more like a standard libertarian vs. socialized angle which is IMO a different issue. I don't see how guards walking around could have much of an impact. if they aren't looking in my bag, I can have anything in there, and once in the confined environment of a plane, I can do a lot before any air marshal shuts it down. Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we…
> Lots of the comments here point out that airplanes tend to be the target because we're not talking about "killing lots of people" as we are about terror.
The difference being? I'm sorry. Wasn't the Boston terrorist attack not on a plane? Didn't that kill people. In my opinion terror is an emotion, and people can feel that in a variety of situations depending on who they are. Killing a bunch of people, as an event, rarely happens.
So why do you want to force and coerce me? This isn't a libertarian v. socialist argument. It's a libertarian v. authoritarian argument. Are you telling me I'm a threat until proven otherwise, or that we should have policies that treat everyone or a select few that way?
No offense, but that's no way to live IMO. I'd much rather take the risk. I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us. But for now there's only one solution: That of political theatre.
Please don't get offended as I'm not attacking you, just bad policy. If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here. You can definitely make a point in that most people don't care either way, but I'd like to think that a majority of people who are interested in terrorism (lol NSA) from a philosophical see policy like this authoritarian at best, and evil and conspiratorial at worst.
> Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.
Source? Again, terror is a vague definition of an emotion which is dependent on internal characteristics and machinations of each individual who knows the word and feels emotion. I'd love to see their parameters for that word.
That said, I'm sorry if we disagree that air travel needs to be so tightly regulated. I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective. I can definitely do the same for my end, by directing you to this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/
Regulation can be a little bad for history. While 1970's regs sound pretty scary (I'll have to check that stat out myself), 2000 sounds better than now...