Welcome Home, boys, TSA "Interrogates" our Soldiers. From The East Side Patriot

Glock34 said:

What happened to our country ?? This is what happened >>> about .0005 seconds after the Bombings on 9/11 the Terrorists had already won the war...because what happened next took away our freedoms completely. The Patriot Act ( Wire tapping American's , anyone can now be deemed an enemy combatant or Homegrown terrorist & forefit their legal rights ) was signed into law ( people I mean scared sheeple are so quick to trade away freedom for security ) followed by the Creation of the dept of Homeland Security ( I mean Fatherland Security ) <<< Created the TSA... Any other questions ???? I am shocked how fast you all forgot about this stuff...

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

-- The information I posted regarding the TSA comes from their site! It is they who say that they categorize items that may be "confiscated" as prohibited or illegal, not me. It is they who say they will call the local cops, not me. It is they who recognize that their screeners don't always offer the option to take the prohibited, not illegal, items back out of the checkpoint. Etc. Their words, not mine.

-- The lack of successful attempts to detonate an IED on an airplane (with all the qualifications you threw in there) are not due to screening at all. What has stopped every attack (that we know of): Dumb luck, incompetent terrorists, passenger vigilance, and good intel prior to anyone making it to the checkpoint.

-- It is not just possible that clippers were prohibited items. They were. I traveled at the time when I had to make sure that we had no sharp objects in our carry-ons at all. Nail clippers were one of the items that were listed on the sign and mentioned on the news. At one point in time, they were prohibited.

-- I am not against screening. Please do not misrepresent what I say. I don't take to it very well. I don't respect folks who make a habit of it for the sake of "winning" discussions. I am all for screening. When the screening becomes invasive (and reasonable people should agree that making images of one's naked body and groping one's private parts constitutes invasiveness), it violates my fundamental Liberties. And that is what the terrorists are trying to accomplish: ending the freedom of American infidels that they see as being so evil. Why should we legislate what the terrorists are trying to accomplish by force?

-- Your fear-mongering did not work. I have no problem with my family members traveling on airplanes where reasonable, not invasive, screening has been performed. As I pointed out earlier, screening has not prevented a single terrorist attack.

-- The point I was making when discussing the "butt bomb" (which was totally missed and remains unaddressed) was that, every time we jack up how we jack up law abiding passengers, terrorists will respond by changing how they try to circumvent the screening (which is no secret), prompting an escalation in the harassment of the law abiding public. It is a vicious circle, which I have pointed out repeatedly, has not stopped a single terrorist.

-- What is happening at TSA checkpoints highlights why we should not rely on what lawyers post on their websites, but instead argue using common sense and the Constitution in front of courts why these "administrative screenings" have crossed a line into warrantless and invasive searches. Again, these searches fail the Franklin Test on two counts as I posted earlier.

-- I was a security policeman in the AF for a few years. We didn't have the level of security screening (and still don't) to enter an Air Force Base that the TSA has to get on a plane. Checkpoints (even invasive ones like the TSA employ) actually accomplish very little other than providing the public a false sense of security (that you seem to have bought into totally). The main tools that really provide security are intel and vigilance. Checkpoints tend to focus the vigilance at one point to the exclusion of others and, IMO, can work against good security.

-- However, all of this is providing a nice distraction from the real point: Law abiding American citizens are having their privacy raped in a vain attempt to stop terrorists that will never provide the level of security it pretends to promise.

Click to expand...

Jon Bonavia said:

PTSD causes a firearms disability.

Click to expand...

phoenixOC said:

I guess my explanation of security theater didn't carry much weight with you, so I wont bother again. I didn't voice my opinion to "win" any conversations and especially on an internet forum.

TSA doesn't legally have the right to confiscate anything from anyone and you don't seem to understand this. Please show me on the "TSA website" where it says these items are "illegal".

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm

That page doesn't have the word "illegal" used on it once. You need to learn the correct terminology if you want to continue having this conversation with me or im going to dismiss you as incompetent.

I suppose I will spill some beans for you here. Ive worked with the TSA, but not directly for them. I know what happens and what doesn't, you don't. I've worked in many different security environments playing many different roles. Screening, regulatory, the FAM service, the BAO and TSI's, and even BDO's I have experience with. Look those acronyms up, i'm not explaining them. I have also worked with El Al airlines and am familiar with Israeli security models. Nobody knows security like El Al.

The AIT full body scanners don't see a "naked picture". Pictures of the actual image thats seen by TSO's while operating the AIT machine look very far from a naked picture. They more closely represent an x-ray image. The private areas are filtered with computer models. They are filtered so much in fact they can't even recognize the images of their coworkers that they work with everyday. I know you want your rights and I don't blame you.. but i've seen first hand what can happen when an IED is detonated on an aircraft. The attack methodologies that have been used need to be proactiively beaten with new security methods. Period.


The "national opt out day" was a joke. Sky Harbor saw maybe 25 protesters for only a few hours. This is hardly a protest. There was no "harassment". Please learn some facts.

The new pat down procedure doesn't "grope" anyone. TSA employees clearly explain the pat down procedure to you as it's being done. If you don't want it to occur then why are you flying? Take a bus

The point of the butt bomb wasn't missed. I have heard your point from hundreds of other people and honestly I see where you're coming from but it's not working anymore. The butt bomb isn't considered a threat at the present time, so why use it for a sake of argument? No type of screening has been started by TSA to find these "butt bombs" that you're speaking of.

As for the AF security.. this is a totally different ballpark. Again, mostly security theater. Security theater isn't a false sense of security, I can guarantee you it works and there is proven data that it does. You should look into the TSA SPOT program and learn a little about that before you claim that a uniform presence isn't a deterrence. Also look up something that the TSA does as a joint venture with other agencies called VIPR's. Visual Inter-modal Prevention and Response.

TSA employees at the TSO level don't get much in the way of intelligence. Those TSA employees at a higher pay band (F band and above right now) can receive security clearances from secret on up depending on what their position dictates.

TSA delivers what it promises. There is no doubt about that. If TSA ever actually stopped an IED from boarding a plane it's not TSA that you should be upset with. It's the intelligence forum that you should have a gripe with.

eye95, it seems we agree on some things and don't on others. I enjoyed the chat with you but it's clear from the terminology you use that Security in its true sense is something you know little about. Law on the other hand is something you have a good grip on. Uncle Sam does what he wants and it takes a lot to change his mind.

It's clear that you don't like the way that TSA does it's administrative searches and I can tell you that EVERY case which has made it to the supreme court where someone claimed that AIRPORT security (before TSA as well) has violated their 4th amendment rights has LOST. TSA is here to stay and so are their policies. You won't get uncle sam to change his mind on this one

As a closing point, if you don't like it then don't fly. Period. Flying is an option. You complain about the procedures yet you still pay for tickets and submit yourself to this type of screening. Please cry me a river.

phoenixOC

Click to expand...

JamesCanby said:

.... or Baltimore. There were frequent commercial flights landing there with soldiers returning for R&R. Units that are coming back en mass from deployment on MAC aircraft land at a military installations.

Click to expand...

mohawk001 said:

I wonder why my brother, who works for TSA and gets hassled for it every time we call each other, calls BS on the "facts" in this post..............

He was glad to see that you're willing to be one of the sheep though who doesn't believe they should have any rights.

Click to expand...

mohawk001 said:

I wonder why my brother, who works for TSA and gets hassled for it every time we call each other, calls BS on the "facts" in this post..............

He was glad to see that you're willing to be one of the sheep though who doesn't believe they should have any rights.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

He also argued against information I pulled from the TSA site itself. So I gave up. What he says has been essentially refuted and most folks here will not give his posts on this topic credibility. No worries.

Click to expand...

phoenixOC said:

I suppose I will spill some beans for you here. Ive worked with the TSA, but not directly for them.

Click to expand...

phoenixOC said:

And I asked you to show where you pulled it from and didn't site your source.. Heres a source for you I work for TSA.. I don't care what you think is credible.

Click to expand...

slowfiveoh said:

Untrue, and displaying your complete lack of knowledge of what PTSD is.

Click to expand...

Paul Valone said:

Gun Rights 101: Mental health checks for gun purchases

* September 3rd, 2009 1:31 pm ET

Passed in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre and backed by the NRA, H.R. 2640, the “NICS Improvement Act of 2007,” requires states to report mental health data for inclusion in gun purchase background checks via the National Instant Check System (NICS). Unfortunately, the NRA apparently engineered passage through the U.S. House and a Senate Judiciary Committee without even a recorded vote.


Essentially, H.R. 2640 does the following:

* Requires states to report “involuntary commitments” and “adjudications” of “mental defectives” to the Attorney General for inclusion in FBI NICS checks;
* Creates a process for relief from a mental health “firearms disability.”

PROBLEMS WITH HR 2640

New “prohibited persons?”

During debate over the bill, the NRA said: “H.R. 2640 does not create any new classes of "prohibited persons" [i.e. prohibited from owning firearms]. The NRA does not, and will not, support the creation of new classes of prohibited persons. H.R. 2640 only requires reporting of available records on people who are prohibited from possessing firearms under existing law.”

In truth, while H.R. 2640 doesn’t specifically create new classes of prohibited persons, existing vague language in section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code could already be construed to prohibit tens of thousands of people from owning guns, including (but not limited to) diagnoses of depression, bipolar disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), chemical dependency, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Lacking a centralized reporting system for mental health data, no scrutiny has been directed at such people with regard to gun purchases. Yet H.R. 2640 creates exactly such a centralized reporting system, ensuring that for years to come, gun control advocates will look to “close loopholes” by reinterpreting “mental defective” to include more and more people as “prohibited persons.”

WHAT DOES ‘ADJUDICATION’ MEAN?

Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4) , prohibits transferring firearms to “mental defectives” which vague language in the Code of Federal Regulations under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 defines as:

“Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.”

“Adjudication” doesn’t refer only to court rulings, but instead by a “DETERMINATION by a board, court or commission…” which could include, among other things, a board of psychologists at a mental hospital. Moreover, anyone with a “mental illness” who is deemed by psychologists as unable to “manage his own affairs” would be a prohibited person.

In response to intense grassroots pressure, the NRA and Congress worked out a deal limiting (at least in theory) those “adjudicated” as “mental defectives” by adding the following language:

“No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if ...

“(C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code …” [emphasis added]

WHY PROTECTIONS ARE INADEQUATE

Note that although the language seems to exclude determinations of mental “defects” solely as the result of medical determinations, it sticks an “AND” into subsection C which, in circular fashion, refers back to section 922(g)(4).

Given the circularity of the supposed protection plus the fact that “board, commission, or other lawful authority” is still undefined, little has changed with regard to what constitutes an “adjudication” of incompetence.

Another problem is the fact that the Attorney General and legislature of at least one state (North Carolina) has attempted to construe “committed to a mental institution” under section 922(g)(4) to include people remanded to OUTPATIENT treatment who are specifically NOT a danger to themselves or others.

CONCLUSION

Although the NRA claims that H.R. 2640 applies only to people involuntarily committed to mental institutions or adjudicated as “mental defectives” by a court, the fact that existing law includes “boards” and “commissions” says otherwise. And although, technically, the bill doesn’t create new classes of “prohibited persons,” it creates a mechanism for REINTERPRETING EXISTING VAGUE LANGUAGE—written before mental health treatment became as pervasive as it is today—which will inevitably be used to bar ever-increasing numbers of people from owning guns.

With a health care reform bill looming before Congress which stands to not only centralize mental health data, but to remove privacy protections, Americans are at risk of a vast expansion in the number of people prohibited from owning guns.

Click to expand...

phoenixOC said:

And I asked you to show where you pulled it from and didn't site your source.. Heres a source for you I work for TSA.. I don't care what you think is credible. I see that you're on this forum more than anyone else. I like to call that a forum troll. I'm going to guess your an old retired man who lives on the internet with not much of a social life to speak of.

Anyhow. I'm done with this topic. It's easy to see that none of you thus far know none of the facts about TSA or security itself. All you care about are arguing for your rights just for the sake to argue with regards to this topic. Quite lame if you ask me. I know TSA very well inside and out both as a passenger and an employee. I have always scored in the top tier in my testing and pride myself on keeping people safe whether you like it or not. Go take a bus

Click to expand...

MarlboroLts5150 said:

Can't seem to make up your mind there. Which is it? You WORKED WITH THEM, BUT NOT DIRECTLY....or is it I WORK FOR TSA?

I'm feelin' a little like Columbo here.

Click to expand...

MarlboroLts5150 said:

Can't seem to make up your mind there. Which is it? You WORKED WITH THEM, BUT NOT DIRECTLY....or is it I WORK FOR TSA?

I'm feelin' a little like Columbo here.

Click to expand...

phoenixOC said:

Yada, yada, yada. (my translation)

Click to expand...

Jon Bonavia said:

PTSD causes firearms disability
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...ts-101-mental-health-checks-for-gun-purchases

Click to expand...

The confusion over H.R. 2640 and veterans, especially veterans with PTSD, began in 2000 when the VA gave the names of between 83,000 and 89,000 veterans to the NICS database. The names were of veterans who had been committed to VA psychiatric wards or who had been adjudicated as a “mental defective.” This was required of all government agencies.

Some thought that any veteran with a mental health issue ended up on the NICS list. That is an absurd assumption. If a veteran tries to quit smoking and goes to VA smoking cessation classes, they are in a mental health program because nicotine is considered an addictive substance. The same applies for those seeking treatment for alcohol or drug abuse. And, we know, these veterans did not end up in the NICS database.

Neither current law nor H.R. 2640 would put any person, including veterans, who have sought psychiatric treatment or voluntarily checked themselves into a psychiatric unit on the NICS list. This includes those with PTSD, those seeking treatment for alcohol or drug abuse and those who have voluntarily sought help and been admitted for observation, sometimes termed a “voluntary commitment.”

Click to expand...

(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

(A) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

Please note again that a person cannot be put on the NICS list solely for a "medical finding of disability,” and that would include PTSD.

Also, H.R. 2640 will provide a means for a person to take their name off the NICS list if they should not be on it, something they cannot do at this time. That provision reads:

(A) PROGRAM FOR RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- Each department or agency of the United States that makes any adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person or imposes any commitment to a mental institution, as described in subsection (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, shall establish a program that permits such a person to apply for relief from the disabilities imposed by such subsections. Relief and judicial review shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code.

Click to expand...

Jon Bonavia said:

PTSD causes a firearms disability.

Click to expand...