Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

TSA Vetting Terrorists


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> TSA Vetting Terrorists Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/10/2015 7:55:03 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/politics/tsa-terrorism-vettting-process-failures/index.html

Why is TSA vetting terrorists?
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/10/2015 8:42:37 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/politics/tsa-terrorism-vettting-process-failures/index.html
Why is TSA vetting terrorists?


They aren't. They are vetting aviation workers, and missed 73 with "terror connections." Come on, man! It's in the second paragraph!!

I tell you, the TSA is doing an awful job. 73 workers with "terror connections," and a recent audit where 96% of the attempts to get contraband past them were successful? FFS!


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/10/2015 8:52:40 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
DS I definately agree that TSA is doing a terrible job. Not sure what the solution is tho.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/10/2015 8:57:41 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/politics/tsa-terrorism-vettting-process-failures/index.html
Why is TSA vetting terrorists?


They aren't. They are vetting aviation workers, and missed 73 with "terror connections." Come on, man! It's in the second paragraph!!

I tell you, the TSA is doing an awful job. 73 workers with "terror connections," and a recent audit where 96% of the attempts to get contraband past them were successful? FFS!



Perhaps FOX had ought to investigate their hiring practices?

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/10/2015 9:09:01 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I tell you, the TSA is doing an awful job. 73 workers with "terror connections," and a recent audit where 96% of the attempts to get contraband past them were successful? FFS!


I know that it sounds bad that 96% of attempts to smuggle contraband were successful. But in my very unscientific evaluation, this seems to be close to the international benchmark of c90%. Not so long ago, I remember hearing a cop crowing about how "successful" they thought they were in stopping drug imports when they claimed a 10% success rate at intercepting drugs imported here.

I really don't know how any country can be made to be smuggling-proofed (if there's such a word!). I can't recall any instance of it happening at anytime anywhere. To me it seems a simple function of price differentials - if the price differential of any product between any two nations is large enough, there will be successful smuggling of the commodity in question, no matter what it is, no matter what the penalties are.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 6/10/2015 9:15:33 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/10/2015 10:51:24 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
Well, we could always strip everyone down to their birthday suit, and air mail their stuff by a second plane. Those that need medication have to take a specific airline, or are boxed into a special area of the plane.

Of course, as amusing as that sounds, its completely Unconstitutional.

Which brings us to the problem: how to reduce smuggling? Since a part of that is also bribery (i.e. look the other way for a few moments).

How do people react to full and total body searches right now? THEY GET BITCHY.

Well, how do you prevent all that stuff being smuggled onto the airplane via the passengers? FULL BODY SEARCHES.

So people are bitching about the very thing that is needed to be performed. The irony.....

But that is only part of it. Since all those people that supply and work on planes could ALSO be used to smuggle things onboard. Maybe we should require them to live in a dormitory for 'X' days of the week on-site. They cant leave, nor interact with anyone except through a barrier (like a prisoner). All supplies are checked down to the square millimeter (I image that will take a long time); to which such companies would have airport storage lockers. How do we deal with perishable supplies?

What we have is people bitching about failures but not wishing to take the steps needed that would ensure the security measures demanded. Like someone whom wants a luxury car but coughs in surprise that they have to pay the luxury car cost before hand.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/10/2015 11:04:26 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
I suppose the other thing to take into account in an American context is that the country is a veritable arsenal as things stand, with hundreds of millions of weapons in private hands. The focus ought to be on keeping undesirable individuals out of the country, rather than searching ordinary individuals going about their business.

In a way the draconian approach adopted by the TSA must be mindful of the surfeit of private weapons, or to put that another way, an undesirable effect of Second Amendment rights.

_____________________________



(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/10/2015 11:17:12 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I suppose the other thing to take into account in an American context is that the country is a veritable arsenal as things stand, with hundreds of millions of weapons in private hands. The focus ought to be on keeping undesirable individuals out of the country, rather than searching ordinary individuals going about their business.

In a way the draconian approach adopted by the TSA must be mindful of the surfeit of private weapons, or to put that another way, an undesirable effect of Second Amendment rights.


Weapons like boxcutters and jet airplanes?

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/10/2015 11:52:26 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I suppose the other thing to take into account in an American context is that the country is a veritable arsenal as things stand, with hundreds of millions of weapons in private hands. The focus ought to be on keeping undesirable individuals out of the country, rather than searching ordinary individuals going about their business.

In a way the draconian approach adopted by the TSA must be mindful of the surfeit of private weapons, or to put that another way, an undesirable effect of Second Amendment rights.



Hummm...maybe there is also an undesirable effect of the first amendment.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/10/2015 1:26:17 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I suppose the other thing to take into account in an American context is that the country is a veritable arsenal as things stand, with hundreds of millions of weapons in private hands. The focus ought to be on keeping undesirable individuals out of the country, rather than searching ordinary individuals going about their business.

In a way the draconian approach adopted by the TSA must be mindful of the surfeit of private weapons, or to put that another way, an undesirable effect of Second Amendment rights.


Weapons like boxcutters and jet airplanes?

Sanity, don't you agree that if the TSA wasn't mindful of the enormous numbers of weapons in private hands in the USA, they would be guilty of gross, possibly criminal levels of negligence and mismanagement?

_____________________________



(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/10/2015 4:27:43 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I tell you, the TSA is doing an awful job. 73 workers with "terror connections," and a recent audit where 96% of the attempts to get contraband past them were successful? FFS!

I know that it sounds bad that 96% of attempts to smuggle contraband were successful. But in my very unscientific evaluation, this seems to be close to the international benchmark of c90%. Not so long ago, I remember hearing a cop crowing about how "successful" they thought they were in stopping drug imports when they claimed a 10% success rate at intercepting drugs imported here.


http://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security-failures/story?id=31434881&via=newsletter&source=CSAMedition

quote:

I really don't know how any country can be made to be smuggling-proofed (if there's such a word!). I can't recall any instance of it happening at anytime anywhere. To me it seems a simple function of price differentials - if the price differential of any product between any two nations is large enough, there will be successful smuggling of the commodity in question, no matter what it is, no matter what the penalties are.


By "contraband," I was referring to guns, weapons, and/or potential explosive materials. My fault for not being more specific. This isn't about smuggling a "commodity" to defeat a price differential or to supply some black market for that commodity.

The TSA is supposed to prevent potential terrorist stuff (highly technical term, I know ) from getting aboard planes at US airports. In one example, the metal detector went off, but the TSA agen failed to detect the fake bomb strapped to the auditor's back during the patdown.

< Message edited by DesideriScuri -- 6/10/2015 4:28:27 PM >


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/10/2015 4:31:03 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I suppose the other thing to take into account in an American context is that the country is a veritable arsenal as things stand, with hundreds of millions of weapons in private hands. The focus ought to be on keeping undesirable individuals out of the country, rather than searching ordinary individuals going about their business.


Seriously?!? Have you not taken any notice of the illegal immigration posts here?!?


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/10/2015 8:10:03 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
Nope. Not a topic that draws my attention.








_____________________________



(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/11/2015 7:07:59 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Nope. Not a topic that draws my attention.


Those that lean right tend to want greater control over who is entering the country, by making our borders less penetrable.

Those that lean left tend to not care less about securing our borders.

There are other differences (especially as it pertains to what to do with those that have already illegally gained entry), of course, but, in a nutshell, there it is.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/11/2015 12:29:06 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I suppose the other thing to take into account in an American context is that the country is a veritable arsenal as things stand, with hundreds of millions of weapons in private hands. The focus ought to be on keeping undesirable individuals out of the country, rather than searching ordinary individuals going about their business.

In a way the draconian approach adopted by the TSA must be mindful of the surfeit of private weapons, or to put that another way, an undesirable effect of Second Amendment rights.

Hummm...maybe there is also an undesirable effect of the first amendment.


Difference between the 1st and 2nd amendment:

We do not ignore the first half of the 1st amendment and reinterpret (i.e. cherry pick) the remainder anyway we want.

Those on the 'right' are known to do that very often when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/11/2015 12:42:18 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I suppose the other thing to take into account in an American context is that the country is a veritable arsenal as things stand, with hundreds of millions of weapons in private hands. The focus ought to be on keeping undesirable individuals out of the country, rather than searching ordinary individuals going about their business.

In a way the draconian approach adopted by the TSA must be mindful of the surfeit of private weapons, or to put that another way, an undesirable effect of Second Amendment rights.

Hummm...maybe there is also an undesirable effect of the first amendment.


Difference between the 1st and 2nd amendment:

We do not ignore the first half of the 1st amendment and reinterpret (i.e. cherry pick) the remainder anyway we want.

Those on the 'right' are known to do that very often when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

Joe, you missed the point...of course. The undesirable effect of the 1st amendment is listening to Tweaka.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/11/2015 12:51:54 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I really don't know how any country can be made to be smuggling-proofed (if there's such a word!). I can't recall any instance of it happening at anytime anywhere. To me it seems a simple function of price differentials - if the price differential of any product between any two nations is large enough, there will be successful smuggling of the commodity in question, no matter what it is, no matter what the penalties are.


By "contraband," I was referring to guns, weapons, and/or potential explosive materials. My fault for not being more specific. This isn't about smuggling a "commodity" to defeat a price differential or to supply some black market for that commodity.


In many countries across the glob, firearms and explosives ARE a form of 'commodity' and often traded in black markets. Back in the late 80's early 90's, there were many Europeans whom would smuggle 6-8 pairs of LEVI's jeans back home (because the price for those jeans was triple the USA price). Firearms, which are more restricted than jeans in most countries, could very well be worth many times its USA price tag. But that is amateur hour. If one wants to smuggle guns, its easier with a cargo ship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The TSA is supposed to prevent potential terrorist stuff (highly technical term, I know ) from getting aboard planes at US airports. In one example, the metal detector went off, but the TSA agen failed to detect the fake bomb strapped to the auditor's back during the patdown.


The TSA is NOT suppose to prevent terrorist stuff; that's why we have the FBI and MANY other agencies/organizations. Their job is to make sure the regulations set forth by the US Government are followed. In this particular instance, in airports across the nation. The US Government, through an act (or many acts) of Congress of directed an agency to handle things in a particular way. Part of the problem is the TSA is limited to its actions according to the US Constitution (for better or worst).

As I said, if we want nearly-complete security, strip everyone one, scan them top to bottom, put them on the plane (naked) and not allow them anywhere near anything of theirs from point of entry into the airport to arrival at their destination. Until of course someone invents a way of smuggling something nearly invisible or concealed past both the pat down and scan while naked.....(then we'll have to think of something else).

Also, force everyone that works at the airport to live in dormitories that are effectively prisons for five out of seven days. All suppliers have to have their cargo checked down to the square millimeter for each piece of cargo (including chemical verification of drugs) two weeks in advance of being placed on any plane. Perishables have to undergo the same testing.

Highly annoying process, if not unconstitutional. Here is the problem that all of us have collectively on this subject: What is the point in which a society states 'this is an OK action' and 'that is not an OK action' as it concerns the airline industry?

I dont think we have reached that point yet. We may never reach it. Where we weigh the 'good' against the 'bad' and accept that anything negative that takes place is the result of that decision. In other words, we understand in a responsible and mature manner the nature between 'freedom' and 'order' (in this case, 'order' is being the opposite of freedom.



(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/11/2015 12:53:24 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

We do not ignore the first half of the 1st amendment and reinterpret (i.e. cherry pick) the remainder anyway we want.

Those on the 'right' are known to do that very often when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

That's the one that's two sentences, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

There are two sentences there:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

K.


(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/11/2015 12:59:24 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I suppose the other thing to take into account in an American context is that the country is a veritable arsenal as things stand, with hundreds of millions of weapons in private hands. The focus ought to be on keeping undesirable individuals out of the country, rather than searching ordinary individuals going about their business.

In a way the draconian approach adopted by the TSA must be mindful of the surfeit of private weapons, or to put that another way, an undesirable effect of Second Amendment rights.

Hummm...maybe there is also an undesirable effect of the first amendment.


Difference between the 1st and 2nd amendment:

We do not ignore the first half of the 1st amendment and reinterpret (i.e. cherry pick) the remainder anyway we want.

Those on the 'right' are known to do that very often when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

Joe, you missed the point...of course. The undesirable effect of the 1st amendment is listening to Tweaka.


Its funny the number of Americans whom would fail at a quiz on the 1st amendment. I recall Gallup did such a thing a few months ago. Asked people to list off all the parts of the 1st amendment. 92% got like 1-2 items correct. 96% failed to get all five. While at a party, things turned to a political nature (not by my doing!). So I asked everyone there to list off all the parts of the 1st amendment. Not one of them got all five parts (or even 4 of 5 correct). What's the point of having rights, if one doesn't know what they are or aren't?

While you consider Tweak, I quite like her. While there are other people I would like to have silenced; that will not happen. Nor do I place them on hide status. In the end, NONE of us have a 'right to freedom of speech' on this forum; we are at the mercy of the Moderator.

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: TSA Vetting Terrorists - 6/11/2015 1:04:59 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I suppose the other thing to take into account in an American context is that the country is a veritable arsenal as things stand, with hundreds of millions of weapons in private hands. The focus ought to be on keeping undesirable individuals out of the country, rather than searching ordinary individuals going about their business.

In a way the draconian approach adopted by the TSA must be mindful of the surfeit of private weapons, or to put that another way, an undesirable effect of Second Amendment rights.

Hummm...maybe there is also an undesirable effect of the first amendment.


Difference between the 1st and 2nd amendment:

We do not ignore the first half of the 1st amendment and reinterpret (i.e. cherry pick) the remainder anyway we want.

Those on the 'right' are known to do that very often when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

Joe, you missed the point...of course. The undesirable effect of the 1st amendment is listening to Tweaka.


Its funny the number of Americans whom would fail at a quiz on the 1st amendment. I recall Gallup did such a thing a few months ago. Asked people to list off all the parts of the 1st amendment. 92% got like 1-2 items correct. 96% failed to get all five. While at a party, things turned to a political nature (not by my doing!). So I asked everyone there to list off all the parts of the 1st amendment. Not one of them got all five parts (or even 4 of 5 correct). What's the point of having rights, if one doesn't know what they are or aren't?

While you consider Tweak, I quite like her. While there are other people I would like to have silenced; that will not happen. Nor do I place them on hide status. In the end, NONE of us have a 'right to freedom of speech' on this forum; we are at the mercy of the Moderator.



You know what Joe...almost a normal person response. Leave off the first paragraph thumping your own chest and the second paragraph would have been reasonable debate. I'm proud of you.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> TSA Vetting Terrorists Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109