As much a boondoggle as it may be, as someone who has a direct interest in how our national security plays out (as everyone else should, as well) I must yell foul at the irresponsibility of drawing attention to such things. The TSA has some bad apples, but as I have been traveling recently, I have noticed an uptick in the professionalism with which their duties are carried out. Depending on which airport you are traveling through, being the most visible line of defense can be an incredibly daunting task. And let's face the reality of these modern times of extreme hatred directed toward the US; we need layers of security because we are most vulnerable in transit (this is true even in military operations).

We're in this mess because we didn't pay attention to begin with. I point to Israel as a model of transit security. Draconian? Possibly. Effective? Without question. Simply put, they have had no 9/11.

That said, our security apparatus must take into account that we are not forged in flames such as the Israeli people are (even after 9/11). And we must be treated with kid gloves, accordingly.

I agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph there; I do not agree with the use of contractors at all. Maybe it is just a show. And I absolutely believe that the whole tweezer/nail clipper thing is absurd. They went overboard starting at box cutters.

I don't believe that successes in stopping terrorist acts using security or intelligence should be public knowledge. Joe Q Public doesn't need to know, for the divulgence of such info would be counterproductive to the task of constantly adapting to evolving threats.

I'm not sure of your proposed endstate in yours and others' indictment towards the TSA; I hope it isn't abolishment. It's impossible to guarantee the outcome of a day like September 11, 2001, had we had effective security measures in place. I would be willing to bet that most anyone would run the scenario again in real life, if they could. I enjoy my liberties, although I think I define them a bit more conservatively than you. I am willing to be pestered a bit at the airport if it will keep me safe. As I said, some of it is quite absurd, but I believe it has a purpose. It could be more effective still....perhaps less burecratic and more realistic.

All that said, I am well aware of your struggles with the TSA stemming from their violations of your privacy. I wouldn't stand for it, honestly. I am only speaking from my own experiences which have been fine, and my own observations, which are pretty astute, I like to believe.

You are correct in that we can never be completely safe, that some risk is assumed in all that we do. But we can't rest on that. Metal detectors work. X-rays work. People CAN work, but they are the uncontrollable variable.

"I would be willing to bet that most anyone would run the scenario again in real life, if they could."

But they can't. The PASSENGERS won't let them. Every time I hear of wannabe terrorist getting stopped it's due to the passengers and flight crew - NOT THE TSA. The TSA would be crowing from every rooftop if they managed to stop a panty or shoe bomber.

Before 9/11 when passenger planes were hijacked the hijackers demanded to go to Cuba. You'd spend a day or two there and then get to go home. 9/11 changed the rules and the stakes of a plane hijacking and people adapted really quick, in less than 2 hours in fact.

"I don't believe that successes in stopping terrorist acts using security or intelligence should be public knowledge."

And I agree with you. Absolutely agree with you that agencies may have very valid strategic reasons for not letting us know about their successes and strategies. But the TSA is NOT one of those agencies. They are not the FBI or CIA. They are a branch of the DHS.

"I must yell foul at the irresponsibility of drawing attention to such things."

No. The public has a right to know what standard operating procedures are. We have a right to know if the equipment is reliable and safe. If they are ineffective we shouldn't be wasting manpower and money on them. If they are effective then the bad guys should know we've got the resources to stop them.

Would you trust a security force to find bombs with a dowsing rod? No. Because it's not a piece of equipment that works at all. But your argument is basically that we shouldn't talk about the dowsing rod because then the bad guys will know that it doesn't work.

Well, no, we shouldn't talk about it if it doesn't work. What I failed to say is that if it doesn't work then it needs to be improved upon to where it will work under operational circumstances (not lab trials) or replaced with something that will work.

Amy, I'm right there with you as far as the dim bulbs employed by the TSA and their subcontractors. Is there a way to piece together a security agency of effective and bright personnel? I think the answer lies in your statement about it being low wage, unskilled labor....make it a branch of the military or police? (Germany had the Flughafenpolizei, or something like that)....maybe the CBP? There has to be an effective answer. As previously stated, I'm not sure what your proposed endstate is; reformation of security measures at airports, or their abolishment and we leave it to chance.

Oh, and knives made of non-metal materials....x-rays and tactile searches, right? Buuuut that puts us back at square one: people don't want those measures in place. So what's the way forward?

I am sincerely apologetic if I miss the point; my window into these matters is more like a peephole. Which is why I am not hugely argumentative.

Honestly, leaving it to chance might not be a terrible idea. The odds of dying in a terrorist attack and the odds of dying in a passenger plane are very, very, very low. Compare it to driving - something like 40,000 deaths a year in the US. But we aren't in a panic about highways.

Metal detectors and bag x-rays? I'm okay with that. Keeps out the stupid stuff like people who forgot they left their loaded handgun in their bag. Lock the cockpit doors? That's common sense.

Nobody is going to let 9/11 happen again. The passengers are fully prepared to mob and pin down anyone who looks like they might be trying to light their underpants. Flight crews are prepared too. Any terrorist that starts banging on the door to the cockpit door is going to quickly find out that you don't have to wait for severe turbulence to get slammed around the cabin, pilots can do that voluntarily and a 737 can do some surprisingly aggressive maneuvers. If you *really* wanted to stop terror attacks on airplanes, have the flight attendents walk down the aisle asking "coffee, tea, or boxcutter?"

The other big problem (not the 4th amendment violating one) with TSA is that it is purely reactive. All the techniques and policies and equipment is designed to make you think you're protected against the last attack.

The passengers are fully prepared to mob and pin down anyone who looks like they might be trying to light their underpants.

They'll even take you down if you happen to be the pilot, as we learned recently.

Thanks for covering, Amy! :) ...and in fairness, the ticket I got when I was 19 was totally deserved. ;)

"The TSA has some bad apples, but as I have been traveling recently, I have noticed an uptick in the professionalism with which their duties are carried out."

So. It's OK if you are presumed guilty for wanting to travel by airplane, so long as professionalism is present?

Idiot. Here. Very professionally, I insist you wear these handcuffs. You should have no objection, because you have nothing to hide.

Not being "hugely argumentative" doesn't lend you any merit whatsoever. Sheep don't argue, do they? Are they renowned for being great thinkers? No.

The passion of the idiot is this: "If I get patted down by somebody in uniform - who hasn't even passed a background check - I will be "safer". No terrorist will attack anywhere in the USA because of the heroes of the TSA!"

Sometimes it sounds like, "...as someone who has a direct interest in how our national security plays out...".

B u l l s h i t .

We gather in the tens of thousands at football games and concerts. We ship millions of ton of hazardous materials - stuff we would call WMDs if certain sweaty desert madmen had them - through our towns daily. We would shut every airport in the USA down if a single grenade or IED went off in an airport concourse, among people waiting to be molested "for their own safety". Gee, just imagine what a kid's M-80 would do.

The enemy is either not there, or is being intercepted elsewhere.

Look back in this blog. I can, and have, told people how to parayze the nation with fear, which is completely possible because people like you have been sold that fear and been told to like it.

Citizens being patted down is not the sign of a free nation.

You should think about what kind of nation we have, where it is going, and what there is to like about that. And I suggest that if you aren't "hugely argumentative" about that, if you aren't personally offended by the sort of thing idiots require of the law-abiding because of what criminals do, you owe Amy and every other American victimized by these power-mad goons an apology for sitting there and giving the TSA a pass.

I'm not sure of your proposed endstate in yours and others' indictment towards the TSA; I hope it isn't abolishment. It's impossible to guarantee the outcome of a day like September 11, 2001, had we had effective security measures in place. -- Joe at April 11, 2012 9:51 AM

Joe, I would love to hear response to this post. Refute it with fact not "I have noticed an uptick in the professionalism with which their duties are carried out." That is opinion. I suspect that you are some TSA stooge told to post rebuttals to make your crap look better.

9/11 changed the rules and the stakes of a plane hijacking and people adapted really quick, in less than 2 hours in fact. -- Elle at April 11, 2012 10:32 AM

Elle, I'm going to post my standard comment on the TSA. It helps your point.

=================================================
The TSA was not needed one hour and one minute after Tower II was hit!

The paradigm, the norm, the expected, what everyone was taught to do was to sit down, shut up and wait for the plane to land and the negotiations happen. That was the model from Entebbe onward.

The passengers on board did not really know what was about to happen on September 11, 2001 at 8:46:30 when Flight 11 struck Tower I.

Even the passengers on Flight 175 probably didn't realize what was about to happen when they struck Tower II at 9:03:02.

The Pentagon crash of Flight 77 at 9:37:46 may have been still a matter of ignorance.

At 10:03:11 on September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed after the brave souls counter-attacked and caused the hijackers to crash the plane.

The time difference is 60 minutes and 9 seconds from Tower II being struck to the crash of Flight 93. The shoe bomber and panty bomber were taken down by fellow passengers as well. Recently, JetBlue's Flight 191 pilot was taken down by the passengers once he was out of the cockpit. Additionally how many times have you heard of passengers' concerns and diverted flights?

The TSA is and has always been a joke, no make that a total stupidity, that has wasted our country's fortune going down a rabbit hole.

If you don't believe me look at the 9/11 timeline.

There will never be another 9/11 style attack unless the attackers can arrange planes full of geriatrics, and even then it would be doubtful.

Metal detectors and bag x-rays? I'm okay with that. Keeps out the stupid stuff like people who forgot they left their loaded handgun in their bag. -- Elle at April 11, 2012 11:34 AM

Something that I have to question: If I'm legal to carry a concealed weapon in my home state, and due to reciprocity, I can carry a gun in my my destination state, why can't I carry a loaded concealed weapon on an aircraft?

An example: I'm flying from Washington State to Florida, via Cleveland, OH. All three states recognize my right to carry a concealed firearm. Just because I am boarding a plane, I can't carry my concealed weapon?

I'm in total agreement here with Radwaste and others of like mind.

@Jim P.

Do you think private airlines ought to have a say about what they allow on their flights? Does the 2nd amendment trump freedom of association?

Well what about the states you're traveling through? Do you have a CCW permit in all of them? ( I know, I'm being a smartass. And airspace is federal)

For the not so smart-alecky answer to your question Jim, you can't carry your concealed weapon because airplanes are private property. The owners of said property are within their rights to not allow concealed weapons.

Additionally the federal government does not allow concealed weapons in airports; adding a rather large complication if you want to carry a concealed firearm in the aircraft.

Now you could argue that 2nd amendment should let you carry whatever you like however you want and wherever you go, but that's not the way the rules are currently set up.

"Additionally the federal government does not allow concealed weapons in airports; adding a rather large complication if you want to carry a concealed firearm in the aircraft."

Bzzt! Actually, it does.

But, you see, some animals are more equal than others. Your permit is not the same as the bulkier set of circumstances attending some police agencies. See, employment is seen as a factor conferring reliability - despite the obvious failure of some police and TSA goons to behave properly in any manner. This is why a bank guard can have a gun to protect mere money - and not much of it, at that - while you cannot, under any circumstances in some places, have a gun to protect your family. Regardless of your qualifications and background.

But don't miss this:

Wherever you are, the lack of a permit doesn't mean there is no gun there.

It only means there will be no legal gun there, which ought to drive you nuts!