I Pocket Knife: A Tale of Petty Tyranny and the TSA

[Shadow 7D]

See, this is the kick, when it all started it was PRIVATE security, provided by the airport or airlines. Then the Fed got involved...

And much like the entrance to military posts, "well you don't have to submit to a search, you don't have to enter...."
And as others have pointed out, all they are (or ever were) is nothing more than window dressing

think of this, how hard would it be to have a plant as an airport employee who drops a bomb in a cargo hold?
Or just send another set of 'printer bombs'???

just window dressing, sure it's much harder for a passenger to get a weapon on etc.
but what many forget is that it's only as strong as the weakest point, much like home security, the TSA is like the ADT yard sign, window dressing that may or may not work.

 

[Ranger30-06]

The fourth amendment actually states:



The fourth amendment does not prevent all searches, only unreasonable ones. There is also no per se requirement for a warrant in order for a search to be reasonable. There are a great number of circumstances in which warrantless searches are reasonable and constitutional.

Before that person with money starts their suit he or she may want to do a modicum of legal research. If he or she does then he or she will quickly discover that airport screenings have been upheld as not being a violation of that principle. See: United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); U.S. v. Davis 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 111 (2006).


Airport screening searches are okay if they meet the following standard. It "is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [] [and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913.

Given the need to secure certain areas, prisons, courts, airports, etc a search to enter is not unreasonable.




In a great number of ways the 4th has actually been bolstered since the time of the founding.



Could you please cite to the part of the US constitution that gives you a right to freely travel? Lets assume that you have constitutional right right to travel. After all the SCOTUS has recognized it at least in terms of freedom to move between states. And federal law, 49 U.S.C. § 40103, provides "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." International travel is subject to many more restrictions. That said, what are the "TON" of strings attached? That if you chose to travel by a plane you are not allowed to bring a dangerous weapon or explosive on board and that you must go through minimal intrusive security checks to assure you don't.

Have you EVER flown? What part of TSA agents touching "personal places" is reasonable? No other country does what we do in the airport (except maybe in Britain, but they're nuts anyway...) and they have the same amount or less problems with their airline systems.

No thanks. I'll take the train or drive.

 

[Sky]

http://youtu.be/v-mOdRjnA0w

Fox news vid and Geraldo

 

[FuzzyBunny]

I refuse to fly as do all my family.
We all moved within 70 miles of each other now and that is great.

If I did HAVE to fly for some reason I would book a flight on a corp jet or a charter returning to its base for service. Take a limo up to the plane and go. There are many sites that will provide you a very nice wide leather seat on a corp jet deadheading to where you want to go. I will admit you have to be flexible on your departure and return time.

Other than that I/we will drive. With family close we have no need to to fly much of anywhere.

 

[DesertFox]

Could you please cite to the part of the US constitution that gives you a right to freely travel?

No because it isn't in there. It WAS in the Articles of Confederation. It was left out of the Constitution as it was considered a given - such a fundamental right as to be inalienable, like breathing.

Drivers licenses are another scam perpetuated to fool everyone into thinking that driving is a privilege and not a right. The only time a license should come in to play is if someone is conducting business while driving. Commerce is what requires the license.

Still not flying commercial, regardless of violation of rights or not.

 

[Ranger30-06]

No because it isn't in there. It WAS in the Articles of Confederation. It was left out of the Constitution as it was considered a given - such a fundamental right as to be inalienable, like breathing.

Drivers licenses are another scam perpetuated to fool everyone into thinking that driving is a privilege and not a right. The only time a license should come in to play is if someone is conducting business while driving. Commerce is what requires the license.

WHOOOOOOAAAAAAA dude! You obviously have never driven in Jersey! In a 20 minute drive, I could show you dozens of people that shouldn't be allowed to drive. Yes, I believe in a right to travel, but many people would be better served by a horse than 3000 lbs of steel with 200+ horsepower under the hood!

 

[DesertFox]

No, never in Jersey. And I guess technically one can get around on 50hp or less without license and prerequisites.

Some definitions on the books of "motor vehicle" actually state "for commercial purposes" or such. It appears that if one examines the laws closely enough, it can be applied against itself in such a way to nullify. Be prepared for a lot of hassle and some additional expense for taking this route and I personally would advise against it. That does not mean that it is not an option.

Still think flying commercial is for the birds...

 

[Girodin]

Minimally intrusive is the term used by the court, a term of art if you will, meaning the least intrusive means that assure the purposes of the search. The purposes of the search are to assure that certain items are not brought into the secured area. I believe that the means I have encountered when entering secure areas conform to that standard.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Amendment Nine

Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

". . . shall not be construed to deny or disparage others . . ."

Such as, for instance, the right to travel freely.

One of those rights that was simply too obvious to enumerate.

I have had debates with a six year old child that contained phrasing like "but you never said I couldn't splash in the water, you said don't walk in it."

When you begin to enumerate all the prohibitions against bad things, you open the door to the argument that anything you didn't enumerate must therefore be okay to do.

When you begin to enumerate specific rights so as to protect them from encroachment, you open the door to the argument that "that's not an enumerated right" and therefore it must be a privilege.


Never underestimate the ability and willingness of lawyers with an axe to grind to engage in the logic and argumentation of a six-year-old.


Did you know that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to eat food? I mean, clearly if they'd meant for people to have access to unfettered binge eating, they'd have added the right to freedom of chow into the Bill of Rights. It's only reasonable, in light of the ever-increasing cost of health care as a public burden: we've got to license consumption of food.

 

[JShirley]

Alot of the rules seem overly strict and arbitrary but I prefer them rather then living thru another 9-11

No, a lot of the rules actually ARE arbitrary. There was a TSA-sponsored study completed about a year ago that found that the most onerous restrictions, such as the limitation on fluids, had no positive effect on passenger safety.

 

[zignal_zero]

but I prefer them rather then living thru another 9-11

I would trade dealing with one 911 per week for all the liberty we've lost since 1850 back.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

In my early 30s I stopped carrying the pocketknife my dad gave me when I was 7 for fear of loosing it. To this day I refuse to let anyone buy me a pocket knife for fear of feeling attached to it. I used to have a job where I flew 100,000 miles a year. I lost quite a few pocket knives after Sep 11 till I adjusted. The straw that broke the camels back to me was having to take off my shoes. To this day I prefer to drive if the distance is 1000 miles or less. My current job requires plying at most once a year. I wouldn't mind the restrictions as much if they would also profile passengers. I get upset by the whole attempt to be politically correct.

 

[Sky]

When you begin to enumerate all the prohibitions against bad things, you open the door to the argument that anything you didn't enumerate must therefore be okay to do.

When you begin to enumerate specific rights so as to protect them from encroachment, you open the door to the argument that "that's not an enumerated right" and therefore it must be a privilege.


Never underestimate the ability and willingness of lawyers with an axe to grind to engage in the logic and argumentation of a six-year-old.


Did you know that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to eat food? I mean, clearly if they'd meant for people to have access to unfettered binge eating, they'd have added the right to freedom of chow into the Bill of Rights. It's only reasonable, in light of the ever-increasing cost of health care as a public burden: we've got to license consumption of food.

Love it ^!

 

[Girodin]

Arfin, the constitution was intended to give certain rights to the federal govt. Certain provisions, including but not limited to the bill of rights were to act as limitation on those enumerated powers. The Federal government has no powers that are not expressly given to them. However, if a power is given to them then they are free to exercise it short of some limitations.

There are a various potential basis for the federal government to restrict one's travel, the commerce clause, or various others as informed by the necessary and proper clause are likely candidates. If that is the case the federal government is free to do as they like unless there is some limitation. Is the 9th, and some right included an effective limitation here? While your citation of the 9th is correct, there are two issue.

The first is of course what rights are included. That will by its very nature be rather open for debate. For example there is an argument and case law to support the idea that the right to abortion on demand is included. Never underestimate the ability of a clever person to argue that some right should be encompassed by the 9th. If one uses an originalist or textualist interpretation to the constitution then what is included is largely unknowable. Judge Bork has articulated that argument much better than I might hope to do.

Furthermore, the 9th may not really do what you think. You may want to read, at a minimum, the following SCOTUS case, U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell 330 U.S. 75 (1947) ("If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail."). Justice Scalia has written in his opinions about the fact that the 9th amendment gives no positive rights and that judges have no authorization to attempt to identify what they might be. This was the conclusion reached by Bork as well.

Personally I subscribe to the idea that the 9th was intended to mean that no rights would be lost through omission and that in essence expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used to argue rights did not exist. However, this still leaves us with the problems above. I find Borks conclusions about what this means to be compelling. If one uses the 9th in another way there is a real threat that nearly anything, such as abortion on demand, would be found to fall within the rights reserved to the people.

I do, however, thank you for comparing my logic to that of a six year old.

Did you know that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to eat food?

Exactly it does not. There are of course other express provisions that would limit the government from denying you the right to eat food. You are precisely correct that there is no positive right to food. I cannot go to the government and demand they feed me. Believe it or not people in this country go hungry everyday. We have non government food banks and charities for a reason I of course have other rights I could assert were the federal government attempting to starve me.

I'd explain what I think of the thoughtfulness and logic of this argument but I'll show more consideration than you did. The above explanation suffices, and is generally how adults should communicate.


*Oh and as an aside the 9th as a historical matter has zero application against what states could do. There was discussion about states placing limitations on people bringing a knife into a secured area. Asking where in the constitution a purported right that would limit that can be found is a fair question. It certainly is not the 9th amendment.

 

[Slamfire]

Well before 911 I flew in and out of Savannah Georgia. Either in that airport or the connecting airport there was a large framed display of handguns. Handguns which were torch cut to inoperability.

This were handguns that passengers tried to carry on board, either in carry on or their persons. I remember a Ruger Super Blackhawk and a Colt revolver.

Look the rules have changed and are more restrictive. American’s may not like them, but they sure as heck cheered for the “Patriot Act” and all sorts of restrictive legislation that burnt the bill of rights. When we did so we put in charge of all aspects of our lives, large Corporations that have a financial interest in keeping us under control.

Repent in leisure.

 

[DAdams]

Jorge pretty much nailed it. We used to give away multi tools as customer swag.
I had 10 in a bag right after 9/11. I was able to send them home from ATL to TPA from a kiosk. I think I inadvertently left a good knife in my carry on once and it was worthwhile taking it back to my truck.

I think they should allow people who have a permit take their handgun back to their car when they forget and leave them in their bag. :banghead:

I travel out of TYS and the TSA persons say that people coming back from vacationing in the Smokies try to come through security with battle swords and Frddie Kruger items after visiting Smoky Mountain Knifeworks.

 

[DesertFox]

Did you know that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to eat food? I mean, clearly if they'd meant for people to have access to unfettered binge eating, they'd have added the right to freedom of chow into the Bill of Rights. It's only reasonable, in light of the ever-increasing cost of health care as a public burden: we've got to license consumption of food.

Love it. Food has indeed become more of a public health hazard than tobacco, alcohol and firearms all clumped together.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Lawyer Tropes

You know, I have worked with, for, and around lawyers. Some of the most cutting lawyer tropes I've heard have come from lawyers themselves. I've listened to lawyers compete with one another for the best lawyer bashing joke.

My statement wasn't personally directed, rather it was an observation of a general behavior.

<snip>

I do, however, thank you for comparing my logic to that of a six year old.

<snip>

I'd explain what I think of the thoughtfulness and logic of this argument but I'll show more consideration than you did. The above explanation suffices, and is generally how adults should communicate.

<snip>

You will note that my actual words were

Never underestimate the ability and willingness of lawyers with an axe to grind to engage in the logic and argumentation of a six-year-old.

You somehow believe that "with an axe to grind" describes you? Did you really need me to add "present company excepted?"

You find offense where none was offered.

And then you condescend to explain to me "how adults should communicate."


We find ourselves in a current culture of trading liberty for security, engendered by lawyers with axes and politicians stampeding the population to expand their scope of authority.

I am less interested in discussing why that's okay, and more interested in discussing how we regain the lost ground.

Explaining why it's "not possible" to know the full range of one's rights isn't really productive in that vector. Explaining why expanding encroachments "are legal" within the existing framework of case law isn't either.

I may not be able to rattle off US Code and and volumes of case law, but I have a keen sense of where my rights have been abridged.

Encroachments may "be legal" and yet still I find my liberties encroached.

It may not be entirely possible to articulate what's been lost and what there is about the current framework that constitutes that loss, but as it has been said before in another context, "I know it when I see it."

 

[Girodin]

Your statement was very clear that the statement that it is worth examining the source of the right constituted the logic of a child.

Explaining why it's "not possible" to know the full range of one's rights isn't really productive in that vector. Explaining why expanding encroachments "are legal" within the existing framework of case law isn't either.

I disagree with both statements. If one does not realize the inherent difficulty with identifying what constitutes rights then it will be very difficult to either form a logical way of arguing something falls in that category or to articulate why something doesn't.

Realistically there are two possibilities. A) let judges expound on what rights are included or B) let the legislative process do so. We have moved more to the second. Each has hazards. Leaving things in the hands of Judges who have, by design, no political accountability is somewhat of a scary thought.

Understanding how something fits into current jurisprudence is actually essential to having any shot and successfully challenging them or changing them. What do I know though.

Furthermore, not all encroachments on "liberties" are illegal. It is important to identify that and then realize the proper avenue is to work for change is the political process. This thread and the blog were not really about policy however. They were assertions about rights. There has yet to be any real articulation of what right is being infringed.

We find ourselves in a current culture of trading liberty for security

This is actually nothing new. It is a cycle that is clearly visible throughout history. On many fronts we have actually dramatically improved in terms of encroaching not just on liberty generally but on actual established rights. I would be first to say that too many people have been far too quick to hand additional power to the government in the wake of 9/11.

It is all well and good to say I want X. However, if one doesn't understand the legal realities then one has much less chance of bringing it about. I have worked at the legislature and in courts. Sticking your head in the sand as to the current juris prudence gets you nowhere. And I say that as a pretty staunch originalist. The fact is you aren't going to change the TSA situation with a legal challenge. The courts have already decided the issues and things are such that a dramatic shift is unlikely. That means the political process and policy arguments are the avenue.

Don't misunderstand, I think much of airport security is silly. However, it being silly is different than it being a violation of my rights. And for better or worse it being an encroachment on some liberty I think I ought to have is vastly different than it being an encroachment on something that a court might actually recognize as protected.

but as it has been said before in another context, "I know it when I see it."

This basic approach was used, briefly, to determine when something constituted obscenity. It was found to be a totally unworkable standard. It was in fact abandoned for the Miller standard. The basic issue with I know it when I see it is that it constitutes pure discretion and people will vary incredibly in when they see it.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Incompleteness

Your statement was very clear that the statement that it is worth examining the source of the right constituted the logic of a child.

Then I must apologize for the clumsy demarcation of the background material and the conclusion. The source of the right isn't a matter of childish logic, rather the rationalization of the efforts to undermine the right. It is that undermining that I refer to as the "axe to grind."

Explaining why it's "not possible" to know the full range of one's rights isn't really productive in that vector. Explaining why expanding encroachments "are legal" within the existing framework of case law isn't either.

I disagree with both statements. If one does not realize the inherent difficulty with identifying what constitutes rights then it will be very difficult to either form a logical way of arguing something falls in that category or to articulate why something doesn't.

Realistically there are two possibilities. A) let judges expound on what rights are included or B) let the legislative process do so. We have moved more to the second. Each has hazards. Leaving things in the hands of Judges who have, by design, no political accountability is somewhat of a scary thought.

Understanding how something fits into current jurisprudence is actually essential to having any shot and successfully challenging them or changing them. What do I know though.

Then I would be interested in a discussion of how to apply this to furthering the cause of chipping away at the plaque of these encroachments.

Furthermore, not all encroachments on "liberties" are illegal. It is important to identify that and then realize the proper avenue is to work for change is the political process. This thread and the blog were not really about policy however. They were assertions about rights. There has yet to be any real articulation of what right is being infringed.

The current security framework is ineffective, inconvenient, and offensive to human dignity and reason. Perhaps from your point of view you can do a better job of constructing an expression of what's really wrong with that.

We find ourselves in a current culture of trading liberty for security

This is actually nothing new. It is a cycle that is clearly visible throughout history. On many fronts we have actually dramatically improved in terms of encroaching not just on liberty generally but on actual established rights. I would be first to say that too many people have been far too quick to hand additional power to the government in the wake of 9/11.

And I would agree.

It is all well and good to say I want X. However, if one doesn't understand the legal realities then one has much less chance of bringing it about. I have worked at the legislature and in courts. Sticking your head in the sand as to the current jurisprudence gets you nowhere. And I say that as a pretty staunch originalist. The fact is you aren't going to change the TSA situation with a legal challenge. The courts have already decided the issues and things are such that a dramatic shift is unlikely. That means the political process and policy arguments are the avenue.

Don't misunderstand, I think much of airport security is silly. However, it being silly is different than it being a violation of my rights. And for better or worse it being an encroachment on some liberty I think I ought to have is vastly different than it being an encroachment on something that a court might actually recognize as protected.

I'm always open to a better articulation of the right approach. However, a cage that inflicts no direct pain and doesn't injure me unless I attempt to breach it is still a cage. A regulatory framework that puts me in a position of submitting to indignities, inconvenience, and expense to do something as ordinary as traveling by air may not technically "encroach" since, as the argument goes, such travel is voluntary, but I believe it goes well beyond silly. Any "security" activity that accomplishes no security but does so at great expense and inconvenience is more than just "silly."

but as it has been said before in another context, "I know it when I see it."

This basic approach was used, briefly, to determine when something constituted obscenity. It was found to be a totally unworkable standard. It was in fact abandoned for the Miller standard. The basic issue with I know it when I see it is that it constitutes pure discretion and people will vary incredibly in when they see it.

Yeah. This is a point of frustration with me. It's a bit like Gödel's incompleteness theorem axioms applied to human rights. You know they're there, you know they're valid, and yet it's not possible to prove them all.

Still, having to construct an elaborate set of arguments to counter and nullify every possible assertion that can be put forth by an axe-grinding political hack (doing his best impersonation of a six year old) simply to secure a right as simple and obvious as, say, travel (or eating food, come to that) is not, in my view, the best way to approach this.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Minimally intrusive is the term used by the court, a term of art if you will, meaning the least intrusive means that assure the purposes of the search. The purposes of the search are to assure that certain items are not brought into the secured area. I believe that the means I have encountered when entering secure areas conform to that standard.

I would argue you are focusing on the wrong part of the argument. If I use the most minimally intrusive means to insure you aren't carrying any ball bearings anywhere on your body, is that reasonable?

To give an example, you can carry a 7" screwdriver or a 4" pair of scissors on a flight; but you can't carry the pocket knife described by the original poster. You can't carry a hammer on board a flight but a 7" wrench is A-OK.

And then we have the genius prohibitions - like no bows or arrows... because I'm sure we are all aware of the ever present threat of a terrorist surreptiously concealing a bow and then knocking an arrow and hijacking the plane before passengers are even aware of it.

There should be no "minimally intrusive" search when it comes to enforcing arbitrary and capricious rules; because the whole purpose for searching is nonsense to begin with. This is nothing more than the courts deferring to the legislature and assuming there is a rational and valid reason for the prohibition, even when it seems clear there that the rational and valid reason was to be seen as "doing something" in response to constituent outcry. We get the government we deserve I suppose...

 

[Girodin]

What is bad policy is not always illegal. What is is good policy is not always legal. Again, it is critical to identify what are legal arguments and what are policy arguments.

This is nothing more than the courts deferring to the legislature

Legislature or administrative agency?

If it were actually legislative action deciding what could come in then a high amount of difference is completely appropriate. The courts are not the place for policy battles. Rational basis review is a very very low bar for a reason.

I feel you may be tossing around terms of art without intending their particular meanings.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That is actually a good point you bring up.... most of what we are discussing are administrative regulations and amount to little more than abuse of Congressionally delegated powers. Sad that neither Congress nor the Courts appears to have the willingness to call it abuse and do something about it.

 

[Sky]

Go to any U.S. government office in this country or overseas and you will see more of the same (usually no pat down yet) to include no cell phones and possibly bullet proof glass. There are people in this world who do not like the American government or it's people and wish to do us harm for whatever reason. .Pick one?

NSA type thinking has embedded itself with the TSA and I promise their paranoia knows no bounds. The latest with the underwear bomber who was a U.K. embedded spy with the bad guys (good work U.K. bad work exposing him and the methods of gaining intel USA) might make it even more interesting for those of us who have to fly.

My first flight was over 60 years ago so I suppose you could say I grew up flying to include having my own aircraft for several years. It is amazing how much air travel has changed just in my life time; even on International flights the food is gagable in coach with the U.S. carriers that I have flown this last year; used to be eatable and decent; actually pretty good.

Some of the other flag carriers once away from U.S. controlled airports are a lot more civilized and usually just have the metal detectors or hand held devices unless your destination is the U.S. or one of it's protectorates; then it is like a mini USA pat down with apologies in the vicinity of the departure gate. The only line is for your flight.

We used to leave the flight deck and on occasion have people (kids usually) come to the flight deck.

I remember sitting in the Captains lap during take-off ( F.O. was making the t/o) when I was five or six and all the red lighted instruments on the DC-6 and knowing in my soul that one day I to would strive to become one of the people who commanded such an awesome machine. Everyone knew I wanted to fly before then but that sealed the deal.

The Captain was a friend of the family named William (Bill) T. Cherry; google him http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...CxGknScLQ..Bill actually hated Rickenbacker and thought he was a pompous %^%$#@. Rest in peace Captain Cherry.

Through a lot of hard work and schooling plus being at the right place at the right time (lucky, lucky, lucky) I achieved my life long goal. The pilots finally said enough and through common sense arguments and the threat of a general strike...... while in uniform and working we no longer had to do the general security checks and were allowed to pass through the crew line with an abbreviated check.

When I was still working we had to do the shoe thing just like everyone else; ( nail clippers and pocket knives were a no, no, even in your shaving kit because our bags were in the cockpit, yet we had a rather large fire ax in the cockpit) I retired before the body scanners became prevalent. Thought some of the things going on then were ludicrous and luckily I was not alone in my thinking but smart enough to know shooting my mouth off at the check points would accomplish nothing good for the cause. Everything comes from the top down in the form of policies and procedures.

Some things have changed yet more complicated now because of the actions of a few; weakest link and all that stuff plus not being a loved country or people ( by some nationalities) anymore does not help.

If someone bombed my neighborhood or killed one of my loved ones I would probably have an ax to grind even if I was a fence sitter before.

No one likes a stranger getting into your personal space or feeling abused. Money http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/0...y-stealing-5000-from-passengers-jacket/stolen , jewelry, drugs being gotten onboard aircraft, hahahha I heard they even got Kissinger at LGA a few days ago! No profiling he might as well have had a table cloth and a fan belt around his head and his favorite AK with all the unwanted attention he got! If TSA leadership focus was more into profiling with their job then things like http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/15/illegal-immigrant-20-year-worker-at-nj-airport/ or a myriad of other news worthy things that have come to our attention these last few years would have never happened. Everyone who has access to the grounds of an airport security badges and codes should be qualified to possess such.

I would like to say clean your own house before you put your hands on the American Public; alas that seems to hard to do with the current leadership and management. With all the money you have spent on intercepting emails, phone conversations etc etc it should not be to hard figuring out who is communicating with supposedly bad guys so put the info to good use. Maybe they just want to track them like the first underwear bomber http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17505 that started all this body scanner stuff that some really good experts say are easily fooled and put out more radiation than the public is being told....??

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/25/tsa-screeners-charged-in-la-drug-trafficking-probe/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ubjected-to-tsa-pat-down-at-new-york-airport/

I could spend all day dragging up dirt on the agency but the bottom line is there are some very good people working there who believe in what they are doing. Management tells them how to and what to do; some obviously abuse their position of trust and power.. There are abuses in any organization and it really makes people mad when some of the abuses stem from perceived stupidity. But hey you can't believe everything you see or read on the Internet.