21 November 2010

Nothing to fear (but fear and maybe the TSA)

TSA administrator John Pistole appeared in a senate oversight hearing this past week. It had already been planned, but he was questioned about my actions at the San Diego airport a few days before and about TSA procedures in general. Here is some of what he said:
As we've heard the various plots outlined here this afternoon, it is clear that we have to be one step ahead of the terrorists. And it's obvious that we are not always in that situation, as evidenced by the last three plots that would--could have been successful.
Mr. Pistole referred again and again to terrorist threats as driving the need for the procedures they use to "secure" airports and planes. And we're afraid of that perceived threat. Why is that though? In this article from Reason, back in 2006 (before the scanners and pat downs were in place), the author lays out the odds of dying by various everyday occurrences (on a yearly basis) and compares them to terrorism on a plane:
  • Car crash: 1 in 6,500
  • Murder: 1 in 16,500
  • Crossing the street: 1 in 48,500
  • Drowning: 1 in 88,000
  • Airplane crash: 1 in 400,000
According to the article, if a plane was hijacked and crashed once per week, one's odds of dying would be 1 in 135,000. One would be almost three times as likely to be killed crossing the street, eight times as likely to be murdered, and over twenty times as likely to be killed in a car crash. Really think about that for a second. If a plane was hijacked and crashed once per week, you would still be more likely to be killed driving to the airport to get on that plane. The takeaway from this should be that terrorism (in the air) just isn't that common. However, it has certainly achieved its intended end, to terrorize.

One could certainly make the argument that it is the government's taking of over of airline security that has kept Americans safe. This doesn't really wash, either, though. There have been three major attempts to hijack and destroy airplanes since 2001: the shoe bomb attempt, the liquid bomb (out of the U.K.) attempt, and the underwear bombing attempt. The TSA didn't even have a chance to catch these plots because all of these flights originated outside of the U.S where the TSA doesn't control security. The TSA can't take any credit for stopping any of these plots. The passengers, themselves, stopped two of them, and good intelligence work stopped the other.

Our liberty continues to erode here at home, in the name of safety, though, while the threat of someone coming in from overseas continues. Well why not institute the same policies here as overseas? Here is another quote from Mr. Pistole during his hearing:
That being the case, I think everybody who gets on a flight wants to ensure and be assured that everybody else around them has been properly screened and, oh, by the way, everybody else on that flight wants to make sure that I have been properly screened or you have been properly screened.
What does "properly screened" really mean? For instance, while I was waiting to speak with a supervisor at the San Diego airport this last week, I observed approximately 80% of travelers being sped through the metal detectors without any kind of secondary screening (i.e. a pat down). I even observed a man set off the metal detector, be sent back, allowed to walk through again and then continue on his way after failing to alarm the metal detector a second time. People need to take a good hard look at airport security as managed by the TSA. It is a lot of show and not a lot of security. The fact that 80% of people are allowed to pass unmolested (pardon the use of the word) through the metal detector means that there is a 4 in 5 chance that someone like the shoe or underwear bombers would be able to get on a plane. What is the conclusion that should be drawn here? Again, terrorism isn't that common, just terrorizing.

Understand that I am not advocating removing all security from an airport. We need to realize that once a plot has advanced to getting whatever dangerous weapon is being used onto the plane, it's already too late, though. If would-be terrorists are able to evade the FBI, CIA, etc. why does anyone think that the TSA is going to catch them? And even if the TSA does catch them, why wouldn't they just set off their device in the airport, itself. Doing so would achieve the exact same effect. Our efforts need to be focused on good detective work before plots advance to this stage.

91 comments:

  1. Look, we all have to make sacrifices for security. Please support our plan, which asks TSA agents to make a small sacrifice too in order to make us all safe.

    Chemical castration of TSA screeners is a simple and effective way to reassure the flying public, and the more people accept the new screenings, the safer we are.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  2. there is a human perception to overestimate the frequency of the rare but spectacular event (the plane crash)and underestimate the frequency of the common, mundane event (car crash). Thus, people really worry about the wrong things and our policies are misapplied. RE airport security: I've heard comments that we can't institute an Israeli style system (interview everyone on line, about 3 questions, takes about the same amount of time as going through scanners, then scan/pat down only a select few) because we have 60x the air traffic. But, we also have 45x the population (and probably a bit more working age population). So it could work if we adopted the Israeli training program, started hiring many more agents and started training them in proper observing and questioning techniques.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unfortunately even with all the expertise, the front people of the TSA are generally minimum wage employees working from a script and a very rudimentary training. Surely most mean well and just need a job, however dogs and fewer highly trained individuals would add more to the security and less hassle for the majority.
    Being someone that has crossed into the border of Canada and back most of my life, I have felt safer with their performance. They ask questions and wait for answers, watch for responses. Even though once our car was completely searched and the inconvenience and more...it was their job and there was serious respect on BOTH sides for the process.
    The security needs to be in place...it is HOW it is done..the HUMAN side and these NEW invasive machines that will be bring the terror. I don't think people mind inconvenience when it is effective, done with respect and intelligence!

    Time and the Holiday Season will tell...as unfortunate new incidents are likely to happen. It should be a loud signal to the TSA, as having the publics' support...their eyes is more helpful, than the fear and indignation that comes from unskilled (not their fault) technicians of security.

    ReplyDelete
  4. TSA is kind of a joke, I've been to several airports and most of the TSA employees are uneducated and incompetent; those people can either work at a fast food restaurant or get a job at the airport, they take the airport because it pays a lot more. They're basically like rent a cops (ie security guards) who have the egos that they think they have power and basically don't. That's part of the issue. They aren't real cops but want to act like one. I don't feel any safer now than I did before 9/11, and honestly I don't even think about it at the airport other than how much of an inconvenience it causes. As it was said, you have a better chance of getting killed in a car. It's a shame the airlines have to suffer because of this (I am traveling less and driving more because of all the hassles), things were so much better before making the passengers suffer and making them pay for it (don't forget about these security fees added to your airline ticket). With all these wasted resources they could certainly be put to better use than to attempt to thoroughly pat down passengers the way they that comes through when smart terrorists are going to use a different means than to go through airport security. I mean when someone gets arrested they get pat down less and we aren't the criminals but are treated like it.

    The purpose of terrorism is to incite fear and terror regardless of how they do it and that's exactly what they're doing at our expense (according to the government/media)! Where's the citizen's thoughts on all this, we don't get to vote on what gets implemented even though it directly affects us. There's always going to be terrorists and bullies in the world, it's just an excuse to reduce our rights and freedoms that this country was supposedly founded on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Anonymous-November 21, 2010 10:37 AM:

    I tend to agree. One thing I've noticed is that there is no common sense on the front line. The agents monitoring the screening process are not empowered or allowed to think on their own. They are simply instructed to follow procedure regardless of what sense it makes. That has led to all of the outrages you see in the media like children, babies, elderly and disabled people being treated badly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Probably 95% of terrorist attacks on planes are attempted or carried out by Muslim men aged in their 20s and 30s. We have about 40 years of evidence of this.

    This isn't about race, religion or politics. It's about putting measures in place to address specific threats. The numbers show the specific threat are Muslims acting from countries outside the US. Thus, our security measures should be formulated for that threat group.

    Why, then, are Joe and Jane Q. Public being harassed at airports? Shouldn't we leave the low-threat people alone and focus our efforts on where the actual threat comes from?

    Israel targets those considered to be a likely threat at airports. They let low-threat groups by without hassle. Their airports are pretty much the safest in the world.

    Making Americans pay with their dignity and civil liberties because the government is too weak-kneed to do something considered politically incorrect will only end with a state that looks nothing like the US we used to know.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Anonymous-November 21, 2010 10:53 AM:

    I apologize for removing your comment, but please do not post personal information about me. You did make good points about security vs. inconvenience and I would be happy to talk more in depth about them so long as the conversation remains about the issue(s) and not me or you.

    To your point, yes security is inconvenient and should exist in layers. However, the government is constrained by the 4th amendment in this instance. There are multiple ways to achieve security at the airport that can be just as effective without the intrusiveness. They would be inconvenient still, to be sure, but the argument isn't about inconvenience.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "no common sense on the front line That has led to all of the outrages"
    So, you want the TSA to employ people that have the ability and authority to make those kind of judgement calls in every airport security spot? You're proposing that the TSA easily quadruple it's budget, somehow locate people that would have the qualifications and convince them that they would enjoy a mind numbingly repetitive job dealing with harried and sometimes arrogant peoople all day long? I'll put you down as the first volunteer.

    As an engineer, you make tradeoffs every day. In your entire career, has there ever been enough time and money to do exactly the right thing on a solution, ever? People dont like the reality that there is ALWAYS a compromise when it comes to time and money. That's reality. A good solution balances both, that's what good engineering is all about, striking the right balance.

    think it thru man.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Anonymous-November 21, 2010 11:29 AM:

    Actually, I want to get rid of the TSA and return responsibility for security to the airlines themselves. Then there would be no 4th amendment argument at all. The airlines would be bound by what the public wants, and a balance between security, convenience, etc. would be found pretty quickly.

    To the rest of your comment: TSA already has tens of thousands of employees that "enjoy a mind numbingly repetitive job dealing with harried and sometimes arrogant people all day long". I have to imagine that a good percentage of them could be trained to do better.

    Finally, as an engineer, I am familiar with the idea of balancing doing the "right thing" with time and money. I also have to be concerned with building a product that the consumer will buy. That's why I suggest returning security to the airlines. They have an incentive to balance security (they lose huge amounts of money when something goes wrong on a plane both in terms of the loss of capital and the loss of confidence of the passengers) with what the passengers want (passengers will quickly gravitate to the airline that provides what they perceive as the best security for the right price).

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I apologize for removing your comment, but please do not post personal information about me"
    You're funny John, you feel free to surreptitiously record/video employees of the TSA, post it on the internet, invite the world to vet their actions, yet you cringe when what you do for a living is revealed.
    You have standards of behaviour at work here John.

    ReplyDelete
  12. you dont find it at all hypocritical that you censure relevant, civil and brief posts to your blog?
    It's your blog, you can obviously do what ever you want with it, but the reality is, the minute you posted your expose, you also subjected your own personal life to public scrutiny.
    Personally, I find you're actions very disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey John, there's been a petition started thanks to you getting the ball rolling:

    http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/tsa_an

    I think EVERYONE who is thoroughly disgusted by the TSA perversion and infringement on our liberties should sign this petition as I have.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm glad you did what you did. You started conversation that needed to be started in this country. Watch this, you'll laugh.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/snl-tsa-pat-downs_n_786541.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Actually, I want to get rid of the TSA and return responsibility for security to the airlines themselves. Then there would be no 4th amendment argument at all"
    So, let me get this straight, you dont object to the AIT/pat down.. you just object to the govt doing it?

    "That's why I suggest returning security to the airlines. They have an incentive to balance security (they lose huge amounts of money when something goes wrong on a plane both in terms of the loss of capital and the loss of confidence of the passengers) with what the passengers want (passengers will quickly gravitate to the airline that provides what they perceive as the best security for the right price). "
    The only problem with that logic is that airplane crashes dont kill just the people on board. If they did, I would agree with your logic, since they dont your logic is in error. That is precisely why the govt must get involved.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @November 21, 2010 12:11 PM:

    I do not find it hypocritical that I remove personal information posted about me. Personal information about me has no bearing on the TSA's actions.

    As to the disingenuous part, please feel free to email me and we can discuss further.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @November 21, 2010 12:26 PM:

    "So, let me get this straight, you dont object to the AIT/pat down.. you just object to the govt doing it?"

    Not quite. I would still object to the AIT/pat down, but a private entity is not similarly constrained by the constitution. The only recourse against a private entity engaged in such activities would be to "take your business elsewhere".

    "The only problem with that logic is that airplane crashes dont kill just the people on board. If they did, I would agree with your logic, since they dont your logic is in error. That is precisely why the govt must get involved."

    The only problem with this logic is that car crashes don't kill just the people driving the car. By your logic, the government should screen us before we set off to work each day. And even then, they can't prevent a crash.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Breaking news...

    Airline passengers turn to cameras, cell phones documenting what they believe to be a disturbing violation of privacy due to new TSA security screening guidelines.

    In other news...

    Increasing numbers of candid and compromising pictures of passengers receiving "enhanced" pat-downs by TSA screeners showing up in various online blogospheres, many uncensored.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @November 21, 2010 12:02 PM:

    "You're funny John, you feel free to surreptitiously record/video employees of the TSA, post it on the internet, invite the world to vet their actions, yet you cringe when what you do for a living is revealed. You have [two] standards of behaviour at work here John."

    The government via the courts has repeatedly held that people do not have an expectation of privacy in public places. Furthermore, the entire incident was recorded by the airport's own cameras. Recording a government entity and holding it accountable is something that we should expect from our citizens. The government is not above its own laws.

    As I said previously, if you would like to discuss further, please email me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Having lived in foreign countries I definitely agree that you have to draw the line somewhere before you create a police state where the main thing people fear is the police not the criminal...TSA is over the line here, maybe some don't agree and they will come on board when they start with cavity searches...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bottom line, the TSA is a threat to our safety. I am not saying every TSA employee has bad intentions, but overall the agency has made flying more dangerous, more expensive, and more challenging for the average traveler.

    I think this entire incident brings into perspective some very important larger issues regarding airport security:

    1.) It has become quite apparent that the TSA, and it's employees, seek to harm innocent Americans and aid those who wish to bring us harm. The "job" they are performing is at best unjust and unconstitutional, and quite possibly criminal.

    2.) TSA employees are NOT LEO's - they are not even "officers", and never have been! They are merely government employees, no different than someone who works for the Department of Agriculture, for example. They are no more an "officer" than a mall security guard! They are not issued firearms and do NOT have powers of arrest. They do not even have a valid badge.

    3.) Let this be a lesson to everyone: RECORD EVERY TSA ENCOUNTER WHENEVER POSSIBLE AT THE AIRPORT. This protects not only you, but other innocent Americans as well. Record everything, so there is evidence should something happen like it did to Mr Tyner. Most cell phones today make it very easy to activate an audio and/or video recorder.

    It is up to every one of us to fight the war against the TSA in a legal and responsible manner. We can do this by communicating with our congressmen, insisting that screening is turned over to private companies, and most importantly by REFUSING THE AIT SCAN EVERY SINGLE TIME!

    The TSA is endangering American lives on a daily basis. In the name of both national security and civil rights, the organization needs to be dismantled before there is another tragedy. This is extremely serious business, but it is a battle we are currently winning.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I would rather get on a place with 200 folks who would risk their lives and beat the ____ out of a would-be threat, than with 200 folks who willingly remove their children's little shoes and expose their young daughters to the groping of TSA men!

    ReplyDelete
  23. If the government cared at all about saving life, it would reduce the highway speed limits by 20 miles an hour (and ticket the hell out of speeders).

    It doesn't do that, though. Why? Because people would find it inconvenient.

    The general public already INSISTS on trading Total Security for convenience -- on the road. Why not at the airport too?

    ReplyDelete
  24. What you did is so admirable. Thank you for standing up for your rights and for making people aware of it. It's a help to us all.

    I believe the TSA is implementing sexual assault by coercion. How can they think it's okay to touch someone in their private areas? How is it not sexual assault if they touch my private areas against my will? But if I don't consent, they don't let me fly. How is this not illegal and immoral? Is that not sexual assault compounded by coercion? Coercion: To compel by force, intimidation or authority -- especially without regard for individual desire or volition. Is that not what the TSA is doing?

    This absolutely must be stopped. And I feel that your stance is definitely a help. Thank you.

    It is ludicrous that they threatened you with a fine for not completing the screening process. That law must pertain to those actually boarding a plane. That was the condition of your not boarding -- to not submit to the intrusive pat-down. It is null and void if you are not boarding the plane. Simple as that. Should they have the audacity to even try to sue you, I hope you would consider a counter-suit.

    Good luck to you and thank you again for standing up for your rights.

    ReplyDelete
  25. -->the govt has a responsibility to protect it's populace from terrorist activities.
    -->you have agreed that a complete security system must have multiple layers, not having a screening of passengers and baggage as they are about to board would of course be ridiculous. Having it adds substantially to the overall security of the system. How substantial is a factor of the rigorousness of the screening
    -->you have said metal detectors alone are insufficient
    -->you have said that there are tradeoff's between security and convenience
    so, what's your solution? or are you one of those folks that complains bitterly about the inconveniences that law enforcement imposes, then complains bitterly after something that law enforcement wasnt doing enough?

    ReplyDelete
  26. 4th amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    If you want to get indignant, get indignant at the source of the neccessity for these pain in the neck security procedures.
    By introducing the threat, terrorists have created the neccessity, and "reasonableness" for the security actions.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "The government via the courts has repeatedly held that people do not have an expectation of privacy in public places. Furthermore, the entire incident was recorded by the airport's own cameras. Recording a government entity and holding it accountable is something that we should expect from our citizens. The government is not above its own laws."

    Agreed on all counts.
    What's funny, is that you dont understand that by posting the video and blogging about it, you place yourself in the public arena, and are therefor subject to the same rules of full disclosure.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Land of the free, home of the brave"

    Guess we better change the song.

    The next step will be Federal criminal penalties for surreptitiously recording anything the TSA says or does. Several states have already enacted laws criminalizing recording of law enforcement officers in the course of their duties. Too many of them were caught breaking the laws they are supposed to uphold and ended up on YouTube. The solution? Criminalize any means to out their abuse.

    http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

    And here is a nice example of what became of First Amendment freedom to peaceably assemble -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tNk6h2_khA

    The USA has become a de facto police state. Things will surely get worse from here on if folks don't stand together and try to reclaim some of the freedoms already lost.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "If you want to get indignant, get indignant at the source of the neccessity for these pain in the neck security procedures.
    By introducing the threat, terrorists have created the neccessity, and "reasonableness" for the security actions."

    Oh bulls**t. How hard would it be to screen people once and put them on the list of non-threats? For instance, I have a security clearance with the government. I'm in the military. What are the chances I'm going to hijack a plane? Why do I need to be checked every time? It's stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I know you didn't set out to become a celebrity, but you have, and bravo to you for the reasons you have done so. I traveled extensively on business for twelve years BEFORE 9/11. I didn't mind the traveling and definitely enjoyed some of the countries I visited, but I did not care for the whole airport routine even then. Be it airport "security" or even customs, most of the rent-a-cops were less than professional and embarrassingly obvious in their lack of understanding of just what it was they were supposed to be doing. Post 9/11 measures haven't seen improvement in these employees at all, even though the stakes are supposedly higher.

    I heard of you like everybody else who listens to and/or reads the news. However, I was impressed to hear your articulate explanation later on KFI's John & Ken Show, and pleased that it was coming from an obviously bright young man with a valid point. Keep rolling, John!

    ReplyDelete
  31. John -- I support you 100% on this. My wife is surprised I didn't do this first (I was too afraid of recording in a two-party state).

    Over the past week (thanks to your efforts), people have CORRECTLY categorized this garbage as "security theatre" (sic).

    Look at Israel. Look at Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and other nations in which political instability is a light switch away (if people choose to disagree, please don't pull out Singapore - it's not as stable as you think).

    The point is - they look for bad THINGS, not potentially bad PEOPLE. I'm white and male. I would never blow up an aircraft. And I'm tired of getting patted down, "interrogated", and chastised by lowly-educated, non-Top Secret, glorified mall security guards who have a chip of their shoulders.

    ReplyDelete
  32. To "Anonymous 2:13pm":

    Here's a solution: PROFILE.

    ASK SIMPLE QUESTIONS. LOOK FOR BAD PEOPLE.

    Follow what Israel started - FIFTY YEARS AGO.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "How hard would it be to screen people once and put them on the list of non-threats? For instance, I have a security clearance with the government. I'm in the military. What are the chances I'm going to hijack a plane? Why do I need to be checked every time? It's stupidity."

    Major Nidal Malik Hasan had a security clearance didnt he? Naive in the extreme to think that every military person with a clearance would never commit such an atrocity. Naive also to think that having not tried to carry explosives on a plane once, means you would never do it.
    The minute you create a category of persons that dont have to submit to a screening process you're going to have every bad guy in the world trying to get on that list.

    ReplyDelete
  34. To "Anonymous 2:13pm": Here's a solution: PROFILE. ASK SIMPLE QUESTIONS. LOOK FOR BAD PEOPLE. Follow what Israel started - FIFTY YEARS AGO.

    completely agree, there's a reason that El Al is "widely acknowledged as the world's most secure airline"

    ReplyDelete
  35. "look for bad THINGS, not potentially bad PEOPLE"
    So, Mr. Tyner, what does a civil libertarian like yourself think of profiling?

    ReplyDelete
  36. John, Thank you so much for taking your stand. As the resulting uproar from other citizens and their stories of their own horrifying incidents with TSA several notable things have NOW been implemented,that were common sense and moral, but the TSA people were doing. They are now not going to grope, er, I mean pat-down children under 12 yrs old. That alone is a major victory, thanks to you bringing this issue to light. Also now pilots and crew will not have to go through the regular security that passengers do. A victory for all of them, that had complained, been given unpaid leave until they complied, and filed law-suits. Another unexpected move was the member of congress that sent letters to airports encouraging them to drop the TSA and hire professional private security firms instead. All because you stood up. Goes to show that yes, amazingly, ONE PERSON can make a difference. You ARE a hero. Even if it is JUST what has changed since your experience. And hopefully this will just be the beginning of changes to the humiliating experiences that people up to now have had to endure to fly within the U.S. especially when what has been done is false security, as the people that want to do harm would have no qualms about inside the body bombs. They want to die anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Johnny Edge said... "The only problem with this logic is that car crashes don't kill just the people driving the car. By your logic, the government should screen us before we set off to work each day. And even then, they can't prevent a crash."

    People arent suicide bombing each other on the freeways. The govt clearly has a diffrent responsibility vis terrorism and drunk driving

    think...

    ReplyDelete
  38. TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news/

    This 61 year-old cancer survivor went through the nude scanner... then pulled aside for a pat-down. He has a urostomy bag from his cancer ordeal, and had to ask twice for privacy. He also tried to explain the delicate medical equipment attached to his stomach, but the TSA basically shushed him, damaged his causing his urine to leak over his clothes, and sent him on his way.

    How bad is it that not only did this retired special-ed teacher attempt to follow all the rules by exposing himself to radiation, and requesting privacy, had to travel through an airport, board a plane and await take-off before being allowed to clean urine off himself. If anyone believed in the intelligence and empathy of the TSA, throw your support right out the window. There is no excuse for this. Threats from within the country aren't as big an issue as mailed explosives and outside forces. We shouldn't have to forfeit our Constitutional rights to travel from Detroit to Orlando.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm still stratching my head and wondering what all of this is about. Since when does the government care about our lives? They allow smoking, though it kills thousands a year, because it is better for their bottomline. They don't care about our lives and never have...so what's this sudden interest in "supposedly" keeping us alive? But then again, anyone with reasonable intelligence knows that this is just a pony show. when the TSA comes out with "now you know that each person on the plane has been properly searched"...uh, one got sexually molested while all the others went through the metal detector. So if "properly searched" applies to the 99% that went through the metal detector, what is the point of anything else?? And please, let's not forget that an intelligent terrorist is clearly not going to strap the bomb to his boob. He's going to insert it in his ass at this point. still feel safe? Even if 100% of the people on the plane have been sexually assaulted? I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  40. i wholeheartedly commend you for your stand! little by little we lose our privacy and rights and we are doing exactly what the terrorists want us to do. i want safety like the next traveller but im not willing to submit to what amounts to a legal groping. and al qaeda sits back and laughs their asses off while we over- react to every threat, real or percieved. its keystone cops modern day. stop rolling out security measures before they are thoroughly tested and take into consideration the cross section of cultures in the U.S. and the ramifications of blanket measures. DHS, TSA and the Border Patrol are the new Nazis and where/when will it stop?

    ReplyDelete
  41. John "Sleazeball" Pistole is the Administrator of the United States Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and former Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation...

    FBI, those nice folks who burned 80 women and children alive at church, and said the Mafia didn't exist while J Edgar Hoover vacationed with the Mafia while wearing a dress and assassinating JFK and MLK.

    Operation Northwoods...dont leave home without it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. All of these searches on the public means less chance of finding the real bombers. Everyone is nervous and no one stands out. These techniques would not have identified the underwear bomber. Not the bodyscanners or the invasive pat downs.

    I already have tickets to fly out of San Diego next month. But since our government and TSA has chosen to investigate you, harrass you, which I have seen for myself. I will never fly out of San Diego's Airport again. Why should I trust a government who cares more about politics than you or the hundreds of others who have been molested, humilated, babies left unattended, and all the other gross injustices to our civil rights and freedoms. I have no guarantee. The airports are very dangerous as long as they window dress with this Kabuki dance and I will never fly again after this unless an airport opts out of the TSA program and assures me that they do CRIMINAL PROFILING.

    ReplyDelete
  43. followup to 9:29pm - Let's just make them all alphabet soup. The border patrol is known as
    ICE - Immigration Customs Enforcement.
    So we have DHS, TSA, ICE and oh so many more alphabets in our federal soup. It's hard to keep up or understand what they are for or what they do. MDA - Missle Defense Agency. That was a fairly new one I saw. Who knew? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm just curious. Do you wear a seat belt when you're in a car?

    ReplyDelete
  45. @ Anonymous November 21, 2010 11:29 PM
    Hey there genius... I.C.E. is not border patrol.... I.C.E. is internal investigations and Customs and Border Protection (C.B.P.) have jurisdiction of 100 miles from the national border. They are the ones that ask you to state your citizenship. Might want to educate your self.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Very well written John!

    Thanks for bringing this total incompetence of government employees to public life.

    To all those who criticize you: keep in mind that this is exactly way how totalitarian regimes start. Perhaps you don't know that police in communist countries who was constantly harassing citizens on daily basis was officially called "Public Safety".

    Whenever someone says that it is "for your safety" or "for the children" be alert. I guarantee you, they are attempting something which they otherwise would never be able to get away with.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Thanks John Tyner.

    Let us know if you run into trouble and need donations to help cover costs. A few dollars from each favorable commenter should cover it I would think, though I'd gladly send $100 or more as needed.

    As for the many miseducated that have written here, it is necessary to point out that they are purposefully miseducated, dumbed-down, and conditioned by the leftist (read - Marxist) public school system, teachers unions, and state media. This dumbing-down is done so that unsuspecting and self-deluded idiots who don't know their history and constitutional rights, and don't know that liberty must be fought for each and every generation, can be lead to slaughter by the tyrants who gravitate to power.

    Allow me to contradict, some dopey, and miseducated view points that were posted earlier.

    1) USA is not a democracy! The founding fathers went to great lengths to ensure that it wasn't. Democracy leads to destruction, read your bible. Ours is a constitutional republic. Consequently, Americans have much greater personal authority than they would have in a so called democracy. Dopes, look it up, educate yourselves.

    2) TSA hires people without proper background checks. They have hired and continue to hire, child molesters, perverts, criminals, felons, illegal aliens, thugs, and general incompetents. Subject yourselves to them at your own risk.

    Whatever you do don't subject your children to these molesting and violating thugs!



    ...continues below see part 2

    ReplyDelete
  48. ..........continuation... part 2

    Children are deeply, negatively affected by violating use of authority. The TSA employees are subconsciously attempting to impose the abusive, porno culture where they come from, on the young and innocent whom they resent and see as privileged. Furthermore, there is a major security breach in TSA's hiring practices, and this poses a clear and present danger to the nation in several ways.

    First, they are attempting to strip the decent American culture of its dignity and honor through the well known and time-tested methods of shock and bullying, and replace that decent American culture with the TSA's degraded gutter behavior and mentality -- basically it is the beginnings of a thuggish outlaw totalitarian structure (Americans would be very foolish to accept this).

    Second, they are attempting to condition Americans to accept these personal violations as honorable, normal, and necessary so that Americans will further submit to improper authority on a larger scale.

    Third, by TSA and the so called "Homeland Security Dept" offering the false choice of thuggish degradation, or no flight safety, they are attempting to fool the uninformed American public that this is the only way to make flying safe. When in fact what the TSA is doing and how they are doing it is completely unnecessary and counterproductive to the stated goal of flight safety. The fish rots from the head down. Look at the thugs at the highest places in the US gov't today. That is where these plans of violations of the American public and her children are hatched.

    3) Our President (Obama) could even pass the TSA hiring criteria. His refusal to show an authentic birth certificate, or any school, or medical records, or personal history, would work just fine for the TSA hiring procedures. But oh yeah, bring on the naked scanners, strip searches, intimidation tactics, and threats of civil fines for average decent people.

    4) Next time you fly out of Europe to Israel fly on El AL. Watch how they do security. Their planes have not be hijacked in over 30 years since implementing these procedures. They do not engage in all this wasteful and make-believe "security" nonsense that the TSA does. The Israelis recognize a few very effective methods to sort out the terrorists who wish to fly. Everyone else is not hassled. Why not use their psychological methodologies, and person profiling here? We would save billions and billions of dollars and the airports would become safe and efficient again. I suppose this is too much common sense for a purposefully dumbed-down society and its government to accept.

    5) John didn't hold anybody up or slow anything down at the airport. The TSA did that.

    6) The incompetence of the TSA and its procedures was well exposed in John's recordings and many other videos on the web. That incompetence is what you all should be concerned with and railing against, not the messenger who brought us the information and experience to see. The TSA fellow at the end of John's recording who was threatening legal action, should be fired. How foolish and unprofessional his behavior was, (he didn't even know it was so) -- it is emblematic of the gutter culture from where these TSA employees come, and emblematic of what they are attempting to impose on the American people through deceptive policies of the US gov't.

    7) What a waste of resources if TSA and the federal apparatus brings suit against John for asserting his rights. The purpose would be to intimidate. That incompetent, overweight and obviously self-indulgent Janet Napolitano has recently been doubling down on her assertion that she's doing the right thing. This too will fail, and she will soon be out on her r(ear).

    It's time for America to wake up again, this happens by the combined actions of courageous men like John Tyner.

    Thanks again John.

    "Don't touch my junk".

    Brilliant.

    -Mr. Thompson

    ReplyDelete
  49. 95% of terrorist plots or acts are Muslim-related. It's just a fact.
    Why is the TSA now saying they won't search Muslims because it would be indecent? The group with the highest threat ratio is now exempt from security checks but the group with the lowest threat ratio is now subject to even more invasiveness?

    My 86 year-old grandmother was patted down in Houston two days ago. She could barely stand without her cane while being searched. Why is she treated like a potential terrorist?

    A three year-old girl was touched repeatedly by the TSA as she screamed not to be touched. Why is she treated like a potential terrorist?

    I'm ex-military and also hold a Top Secret clearance. I work for the government against terrorists every day. Why am I treated like a potential terrorist?

    Why are we not reacting properly to the threats at hand? Why are low-threat Americans’ 4th Amendment rights being violated? Isn’t being treated like a criminal when you very clearly aren’t one an unreasonable search? Isn’t an unreasonable search illegal?

    In my current job I work every day against terrorists. I've worked my entire adult life in the military or with the fed gov to preserve the freedom not to be treated like a criminal or terrorist. I simply will no longer be treated like the very thing I fight against every day.

    I've canceled my trip home for Thanksgiving. I won't fly in December. I've told my boss I won't fly for work.

    If we all do this it won't be just the TSA and airlines who feel it. Our families at home will start to get as angry at the government as we are because they don't get to see us during the holidays while we stand up for out rights. Our employers will have problems because work can't get done that requires travel. The whole system will slow and possibly stop. Sometimes it should.

    It all starts with taking a stand like Mr Tyner.

    If you decide to fly, record all encounters with the TSA. This is the only way to show your side of the story should things go wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "And even if the TSA does catch them, why wouldn't they just set off their device in the airport, itself."

    THIS. Why is a plane the only desirable target for a terrorist attack (in the eyes of the TSA)?

    I'm astounded there hasn't already been an incident AT a security checkpoint, and curious as to what will happen if there ever is. Will there then be checkpoints set up at the doors into the airport? What happens when there is an incident at one of those? The terrorists will simply keep moving the attack back to the most vulnerable point, which will always be right before they would be discovered.

    ReplyDelete
  51. A very interesting dilemma for Mr. Tyner:
    - As a civil libertarian, he abhores profiling. So he would then be in favor of equal screening treatment for all people, including 80 year old grandmothers and 3 year old children. Identifying and targetting "high risk" person's would be strictly out of the question.
    - He has made the case that metal detectors provide insufficient security
    - He has acknowledged that good security requires multiple levels, including screening

    His only objection, is to WHO does the screening. he doesnt want the govt to be the one administering it.
    and yet
    The govt MUST act to address the threat that terrorism represents to the populace. No one disputes that.


    could you please clarify exactly what you are recommending Mr. Tyner?

    ReplyDelete
  52. As a minor clarification, the TSA exerts authority over foreign airports with flights embarking to USA airports, too. If the security procedures of the airliner don't meet TSA dictates, then the airliner cannot fly over USA airspace. This policy is not publicized due to foreign relations concerns, but it's true.

    The TSA's dictates are fully responsible for ALL failures that have occurred since 911. In others words, it has NEVER succeeded.

    Odds. The odds of a plane being brought down by a passenger that is unaffiliated with and having no interaction with Muslimity has been calculated to be something like 1 to 10 to the 29th power. It has NEVER occurred, which doesn't mean it hypothetically couldn't occur. But the odds are effectively absolutely 0.

    The justification for the flat, across the board security measures is that any passenger COULD have some potential interaction with Muslimity. A relative kidnapped, a bomb slipped by a Muslim onto some innocent passenger's person, or some like hypothetical scenario.

    But understand this. The security measures in practice actually FAVOR muslims. The political correctness is so intense, that a bearded Muslim looking all the world like death incarnate has a BETTER chance of avoiding scrutiny than a 2 year old baby.

    The muslims that have been brought down by passengers evading TSA security prove the point.
    Muslims have NO REASON to use the unsuspecting public as dupes for their terror.

    Odds. The odds of a muslim who understands Islam and is intent on carrying out is dictates to kill infidels, heretic muslims, etc,ie, blow up or attempt to blow up a plane is 1 in 1. Absolute.

    The government is spending billions to shred rights AND to endanger not only the flying public but the public in general due to its refusal to recognize that a GROUP (NOT a fringe element of this group) has clearly professed its clear intent to kill people.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "-->the govt has a responsibility to protect it's populace from terrorist activities."

    I would tend to agree with this, but I believe that the government's overriding responsibility is to protect the liberty of its populace. If the government can't or won't protect people's liberty, then it has no reason to exist in the first place.

    "By introducing the threat, terrorists have created the neccessity, and "reasonableness" for the security actions."

    The 4th amendment was written specifically in response to "general warrants" or "writs of assistance" which essentially allowed anyone to be searched at any time for any reason deemed necessary by the British. This is exactly what is happening at airports. There is no suspicion; everyone is subjected to the search without evidence of any wrongdoing.

    To your comment about "reasonableness", at the time that the 4th amendment was written, it is my understanding from my reading that all searches without a warrant were considered to be unreasonable. Over time people have reinterpreted the amendment to allow for the application of whatever "reasonableness" they feel applies in any particular situation.

    "I'm just curious. Do you wear a seat belt when you're in a car?"

    I do. But I don't wear a football helmet or pads which would make me even more safe, presumably. I believe that the level of safety the seat belt provides is a sufficient protection against the "threat" that I face and the likelihood of it occurring.

    "could you please clarify exactly what you are recommending Mr. Tyner?"

    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother

    Even this plan would run afoul of the constitution's 5th amendment were the government to carry it out, however. I like it though because it doesn't require anyone to get naked or have anyone put their hands on anyone else without some kind of individualized suspicion. It also addresses the "layers" one/some have mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Forgot to add that the prospect of a government penalty for not wearing a seat belt also contributes to my decision to wear it.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Good job John, its about time more and more people man up with this bad screening procedure. This is lose-lose situation and the only one winning are the terrorist.

    Blogged about your experience here -> http://www.nothingbutrandom.com/tsa-controversial-sceening/

    ReplyDelete
  56. John, thank you so much for standing up on this. You've raised my awareness of the issue and inspired me to do a little research. Whatever you think of the moral implications of this technology, the health risk is substantially unknown, and has raised serious concerns with people who have examined the logic behind the TSA's claim of its safety. See http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf. I've become increasingly uncomfortable with the "security" screening in airports, the false assumptions that lie behind it, and the profit motive behind much of it. I'm 69, and in a position where I can now more easily afford the time to drive, or take the train, and so have reluctantly decided that I will no longer fly.

    @ZXT, add Michael Chertoff to the people who are "winning". He's one of the fervent, high-profile proponents of these whole-body scanners, and his consulting company has a contract with Rapiscan Systems, one of the leading manufacturers of these machines.

    ReplyDelete
  57. How about we just ban all Muslims from riding in planes and call it a day? I'd bet my 401k that would MORE effective than the way we do it now.

    We'd just have to say, "sorry, Muslims, get your extremists under control and maybe you can ride in the metal tube again."

    ReplyDelete
  58. Thank you John for standing up to TSA! So many people in history have stood up to the oppressive government. Our current government is getting out of hand, too big, stripping us of our rights, always doing the wrong thing first and then trying to correct it.

    You started a movement. TSA should not subject us to body scanners and pat-downs without due cause. That is why the forefathers wrote the 4th Amendment. They understood what the government, any government was capable of becoming if not kept in check.

    We tell terrorist this is what we are going to do and terrorists will get creative and do something else. And then it continues... what next body cavity searches?

    People are becoming apathetic. They do not realize what is happening.
    The government is putting fear into them so they will submit.

    You did the right thing! There will always be people who will disagree.
    Body scanners/pat downs are just providing a false sense of security.
    How well and how often are TSA agents, pilots, flight attendants, airport workers screened? Any one of them can be recruited by terrorists. The terrorists will now send in moles and infiltrate the places they want to destroy.

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

    ReplyDelete
  59. Good job John, and best of luck to you. I agree that these measures are too intrusive. These gained ground after the underwear bomber, but it does us no good to be behind the terrorists. This is a reactive measure. They're not going to try that again. I'm sure they're not far from trying something which would require a cavity search to detect. Would the TSA have us all strip in line then and get ready for the cavity search? This has to stop somewhere. Not only are the current measures invasive, but there is no proof that they work. Why is the government spending so much money on these complex and invasive measures when interviews (think Israeli security) and bomb sniffing dogs would be less objectionable and much more effective?

    ReplyDelete
  60. ban Muslims. there i made airline travel safer for you without Uncle Sam having to bend you and your 4th Amendment rights over. that'll be $5.3 billion plz.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I dont agree with people who are suggesting that Muslims should be treated differently or they should the only ones to be "harrased". People from every ethnic background/relegion/gender... etc should have the same rights and the same freedom.

    First not all Muslims are terrorist, and not all terrorist are Muslim. So all non Muslim terrorist would simply get through security like an average person, while a lot of good Muslims (including elder people and children) would be molested.

    Second, how would you tell if someone is a Muslim or not? A terrorist would certanly deny it, even if he is, if that would make him get trought security easier. Not all Muslim have darker skin.

    Also if you tell a Muslim child that you are harresed only because you are a Muslim and that Christian kid over there can just simply walk through the metal detector, he would probably start to feel hatered toward that Christian kid.

    And last, in history it has happened before that a groupd was picked out and blamed for a lot of bad things and treated pretty badly. I know people back there were treated a lot worse and the situation is not quite the same but still, why is treating a Muslim differntly acceptable when Holocaust is regarded a terrible thing?

    ReplyDelete
  62. John,
    Thank you for doing what you did. I am a 21 year old female from Oceanside, and I am flying out of San Diego airport on the 30th. What airline were you flying? I am trying to figure out what terminal has the body scanners and prepare myself for the sexual harassment. I have been verbally harassed by TSA in the past, due to my appearance (I am married to a tattoo artist, and most of my body is tattoed).

    When I fly out on the 30th I'll have my phone set to record anything that happens. thank you for being courageous and taking a stance!

    ReplyDelete
  63. "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

    ReplyDelete
  64. Thank you, thank you, thank you! for having the courage to take a stand.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Because you're one of those guys who runs into the restroom stall at the airport and pees all over the seat because your junk is so small you are embarrassed to have it seen in public and now, on a screen at security!

    Got to hide that small junk someplace else.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Theater, that's all airport security is these days. The only really effective security are the passengers themselves who have thwarted every would be bomber (from the Shoe Bomber to the Christmas Underwear Bomber) since 9/11. Thank you again for confronting the absurdity of the pat down and the Full Frontal Scan. You are a hero.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Larry...Because you are one of those guys who runs to the internet to post insults about random strangers due to a lack of intelligence and an inferiority complex, you provide that you are aware your not as much of a man as John. That doesn't mean you have to prove it to the rest of us. Thanks.

    On topic: I am very disturbed by the videos and images compiled into a music video on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1vmcJVIErA&feature=player_embedded#!

    At about the 50 second mark, until the 1:04 mark you see a person going through the x-ray, a graphic full-frontal image scan from the nude machine, and a small male child being undeniably inappropriately touched.

    What are we teaching our children about child molesters? That it is okay to view porn in public and to let strange men touch them in their "junk"? I'm seriously appalled. Even though the media and TSA claim that most people don't have a problem with the new "procedures" I would be willing to bet that its because 80% of them haven't even been through them yet.

    Everyone's happy until they are subject to the 'random' attacks from the TSA. I would physically assault ANYONE I saw touching ANY child in this manner.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Well, so much for NOT storing the images:
    http://gizmodo.com/5690749/these-are-the-first-100-leaked-body-scans

    I would find it strange if the opportunity wasn't used to keep all this information. It'll be another database to cross-reference...

    ReplyDelete
  69. I feel that your little blurb about the TSA not making us any safer is a good segway into my own TSA story of stupidity. This past winter I was flying home from visiting a friend and I arrived a little late at the airport only to discover that I was past the window where I could check my bag. My reasons for checking a bag in this age of fees is simple, I shave with a strait razor which is 3 1/2 inches long. It was a policy to allow men like me to carry their shaving kits onto aeroplanes which allowed the 9/11 hijackers to use box cutters.

    My friend had driven me to the airport and when I came away from the checking counter her first question was the same thing that had popped into my head. "What about your razor?" So I went to the security checkpoint positive that I would return home with no way to shave.

    After sending my bag through the x ray machine, which detected liquid, the TSA agents confiscated a full bottle of aftershave and approximately half a pint of mineral oil which I use to keep rust from forming on the blade. Never once did the agents ask about the long, very sharp, object which I was carrying onto the plane.

    So I couldn't blow the thing up with a liquid explosive, but I could've cut someone's throat had I had ill intentions.

    For those of you who think the TSA is keeping us safe, if they'll let a man carry on a 3 1/2 inch blade after 9/11 they're not keeping anyone safe.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Excellent story, Joseph. Glad to know your aftershave was more dangerous than something that could actually be used as a murder weapon. Demon Barber of Fleet Street anyone?

    Don't forget the Reuter's poll, which currently shows that out of 75,467 voters, 96% have claimed to make additional travel plans to avoid the invasive procedures of the TSA:
    http://blogs.reuters.com/ask/2010/11/12/are-new-security-screenings-affecting-your-decision-to-fly/

    ReplyDelete
  71. when 95% of the world's terrorists are Muslim it makes sense to target Muslims for stricter security screening. it just makes sense.

    if someone's liberty is to be infringed in the name of security, let it be the group responsible for breeding the world's terrorists. lots of good Muslims will get caught up in the mix, but at least it won't be 99.9999999% of innocent non-Muslims.

    like i said before, Muslims need to get their extremists under control. once they do that they can have the same freedoms the rest of us share.

    i know this is unpopular because of some misguided attempt at political correctness but if you take the PC blinders off for a second and think about it...it's just a numbers game. do the equation. find the probability based on the facts. implement security measures for the threat.

    if the TSA is so ready to say "we'd like to not trample your 4th Amendment rights, but in the name of security, too bad" to the whole population, i think it's okay to say the same thing to Muslims. they deserve less rights because they've shown themselves not be able to handle them yet.

    maybe that Muslim kid should look to hating the extremists in his own religion instead of blaming the Christian kid for reacting to the threat that Muslim extremist group represents.

    ReplyDelete
  72. PLEASE disregard my previous post (JOHN TYNER PLEASE DELETE IT) I made a mistake in the text and did not properly credit David as the one I agree with. Thanks.

    David said...11-22-2010, 7:50PM

    On topic: I am very disturbed by the videos and images compiled into a music video on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1vmcJVIErA&feature=player_embedded#!

    At about the 50 second mark, until the 1:04 mark you see a person going through the x-ray, a graphic full-frontal image scan from the nude machine, and a small male child being undeniably inappropriately touched.

    What are we teaching our children about child molesters? That it is okay to view porn in public and to let strange men touch them in their "junk"? I'm seriously appalled. Even though the media and TSA claim that most people don't have a problem with the new "procedures" I would be willing to bet that it's because 80% of them haven't even been through them yet.

    Everyone's happy until they are subject to the 'random' attacks from the TSA.

    I would physically assault ANYONE I saw touching ANY child in this manner.

    Mr. Thompson said...

    I am with you David. I share your outrage.

    What is recorded there is abhorrent.
    Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1vmcJVIErA&feature=player_embedded#!
    If you watch the video carefully you will see that after the child has been molested by TSA, the child's body language shows he is visibly disturbed and uncomfortable with the violating experience that has just transpired. The child has no other way to express this discomfort for he lacks the words, maturity and perspective to describe it. The damage however, has been done.


    Shame on you TSA employees for doing this.

    And shame on you law enforcement officers for allowing this to happen.

    Have you no common sense and decency?

    Government agents violating the law is not a legal, valid, or acceptable reason for law enforcement to look the other way. Wake up!

    I add my voice to David's. Let the molesters stand warned.

    In defense of the child and any child, IF I SEE IT DONE YOU WILL HAVE HELL TO PAY.

    Mr. Thompson

    ReplyDelete
  73. David said...11-22-2010, 7:50PM

    On topic: I am very disturbed by the videos and images compiled into a music video on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1vmcJVIErA&feature=player_embedded#!

    At about the 50 second mark, until the 1:04 mark you see a person going through the x-ray, a graphic full-frontal image scan from the nude machine, and a small male child being undeniably inappropriately touched.

    What are we teaching our children about child molesters? That it is okay to view porn in public and to let strange men touch them in their "junk"? I'm seriously appalled. Even though the media and TSA claim that most people don't have a problem with the new "procedures" I would be willing to bet that it's because 80% of them haven't even been through them yet.

    Everyone's happy until they are subject to the 'random' attacks from the TSA.

    I would physically assault ANYONE I saw touching ANY child in this manner.

    Mr. Thompson said...

    I am with you David. I share your outrage.

    What is recorded there is abhorrent.
    Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1vmcJVIErA&feature=player_embedded#!

    If you watch the video carefully you will see that after the child has been molested by TSA, the child's body language shows he is visibly disturbed and uncomfortable with the violating experience that has just transpired. The child has no other way to express this discomfort for he lacks the words, maturity and perspective to describe it. The damage however, has been done.


    Shame on you TSA employees for doing this.

    And shame on you law enforcement officers for allowing this to happen.

    Have you no common sense and decency?

    Government agents violating the law is not a legal, valid, or acceptable reason for law enforcement to look the other way. Wake up!

    I add my voice to David's. Let the molesters stand warned.

    In defense of the child and any child, IF I SEE IT DONE YOU WILL HAVE HELL TO PAY.

    Mr. Thompson

    ReplyDelete
  74. I want to congratulate you for standing up to the abusive TSA.

    I will not fly while these polices are in place and I encourage everyone to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Johnny Edge recommends this instead of scanning:
    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelification-high-security-little-bother

    From
    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/Opinion/76285/Op-Ed%3A-Israel-Doesnt-Use-Scanners.html
    "In theory he is correct, but there are huge barriers to implementing this in the US. Remember that El Al only has about three dozen aircraft, and Israel has but two international airports (one quite small). Even Ben Gurion Airport only has half the passengers of La Guardia Airport, the smallest of the three New York airports. It could take years — maybe decades — for the US to ramp up its security capacity, and the security officers who do the sophisticated profiling would have to get paid a lot more than the current TSA screeners. This isn’t likely to happen given that the Republicans have proposed to cut funding for every government agency except DoD. Another problem is that the archtecture of most US airports is unsuitable to the kind of security screening done at Ben Gurion — and there isn’t the money to rebuild almost every terminal in America.

    But those are surmountable problems. There is one other problem that isn’t surmountable: The increased length of time for screening will destroy the market for short distance air travel"


    Civil Libertarians like Mr. Tyner will be the first to scream bloody murder that racial profiling is occuring.. No matter how many assurances that it's "behavioural profiling" not "racial profiling" the reality is going to be that the majority of the persons targetted for further indepth screening are going to be middle east males 18-35yrs, providing de-facto proof of racial profiling.


    So, thanks Mr. Tyner, for preventing a solution to the problem you are screaming about.

    ReplyDelete
  76. John, I laud you for having the courage of your convictions. I recently wrote a blog post about the TSA situation, and included a link to your first blog post (which I found via the Newsweek website). I hope you'll continue to keep us updated on the situation.

    http://good-idea-time.blogspot.com/2010/11/skirting-or-kilting-tsa-issue.html

    (If you wanted to read.)

    Keep fighting the good fight!

    ReplyDelete
  77. Come on guys - you want to have some security...you better sacrify something, that's "something" will make you safe, let you and your family being happy to live in US...

    We have the security issue to address by TSA - so let them do their work and shut your mouth up...

    How's about letting you in an airplane without any security check? Who want to be in - raise your hand - if you don't - so shut up and start going through the checkpoint or pat-down or whatever TSA screens you...

    ReplyDelete
  78. "To those who are concerned about them being more thorough, I'm sympathetic to those concerns," Pistole said. "But I'm also trying to be respectful of those who want to have the highest level of confidence, each time you get on a plane, to know that everybody else on that plane has been thoroughly screened just like you have or I have."
    Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole

    To which I say, then just get on with it - strip search everyone and check all body cavities - that's where the explosives are. In other words, is there anywhere the sheeple will draw the line against unreasonable search?

    ReplyDelete
  79. I am quite disturbed with comments that discriminate against the Muslims. The mentality of - If you are white, its horrendous to be groped and have your naked body viewed. But if you are darker or/and a Muslim that is fine and dandy - even if you are an elderly/ a child! What bigotry!

    Where are the facts that 95% of the world's terrorists are Muslims?

    If you want facts -
    Look through this

    1. http://www.slideshare.net/abdul_lateef/is-terrorism-a-muslim-monopoly

    2. a study published by CNN based on FBI database stated that only 6% of terrorist attacks on US soil are by Muslims. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

    No ONE be they Muslim or not should be subjected to humiliation by the TSA and robbed of their constitutional rights!

    ReplyDelete
  80. Whiny tree hugging hippy. That's what you are, John Tyner. You complain that the TSA is infringing upon our civil liberties when in fact they are not. You are choosing to fly, to either be pat down, or to have these screeners look at you in a very complex method to determine if you are a terrorist or not. You have decided to pick between choices A and B. You arent being forced to take the flight.

    To be subjected to this on the side of the road after being pulled over for speeding would be an infringment upon our liberties, and our rights, but not being pat down/scanned to ensure a safer today and a safer tomorrow during these times of craziness, when in fact YOU booked your own flight in the understanding that this is how it works now.

    You either don't fly, or you fly and deal with a simple process. The guy looking at the screen on the scanner isn't looking at your penis and laughing(well maybe he is, but you'd never know, nor would anyone else).

    Give a little for the sake of safety, and unhug the tree, crybaby.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "Touch my junk and I'll have you arrested."???
    I hope you get laid sometime soon. If you did, that might - MIGHT - save millions of us from having to see your name desperately trying to get attention again.

    So coincidental how you just happened to want to make an ass out of yourself and put it on display all of a sudden.

    Where has your don't-touch-my-junk-because-I-know-you'd-feel-sorry-for-me-if-you-did attitude been in the past nine years since 9-11?

    But don't worry. Your mother will never let you know how ashamed she is of you right now.

    ReplyDelete
  82. In response to your mathematics concerning the likelihood of a terrorist plane attack being much smaller than dying while driving or crossing the street, it should be pointed out that, although the statistics are much smaller, the consequence of a terrorist attack is much more severe. A car crash may involve a few people, while on the other hand roughly 3,000 people were killed in the attack on September 11th. Now consider the lives lost due to the ensuing war on terror and the pursuit of Bin Laden - the tolls are even higher than that initial 3K. So I feel that the "chance" scale is not exactly an accurate measurement in this instance because you are talking about individual chance, not accumulated aftermath.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "Car crash: 1 in 6,500
    Airplane crash: 1 in 400,000"

    Are these statistics skewed by the fact that far more people drive than travel by plane ?

    ReplyDelete
  84. WOW - WOW - WOW
    I would strongly encorage all you John Tyner fans to read some of his earlier works

    http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2009/12/terrorists-criminals-or-warriors.html

    some snips from John Tyner's blog:
    "To treat these people [Richard Reid (a.k.a. the shoe bomber) and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the so-called mastermind of 9/11)] as common criminals is to deny they fact that they have very real and valid claims against U.S. actions"

    John Tyner said: "This spread of democracy [US in Afghanistan and Iraq] looks a lot like terrorism, doesn't it?"

    John Tyner said: "U.S. actions around the world are contributing to the terrorism against it"

    ReplyDelete
  85. Terrorism is a tactic - it is asymetrical warfare against non-military targets conducted by alienated political groups against states. And yes, there are plenty of groups besides Muslims who have used this tactic to impress a dent into state power. Separations groups in Puerto Rico for US, Basques in Europe, etc. would account for a large quantity of terrorist attacks and thereby depressing the Muslim percentage.

    Pre 911 airport security was adequate and sufficient to manage the threat imposed by these groups.

    These groups did not and do not have members willing to act as disposable bombs.

    Perhaps the threat should be posed as contract- murderers-who-must-die-alongside-their-victims-in-order-to-collect-on-the-highly-luxurious-contract threat.

    Screw the term terrorism.

    Call it what you want.

    But

    A Muslim is death.

    Mot "some." Not "extreme." Not "radical".

    "A"

    "Death"

    ReplyDelete
  86. Just wanted to post something said by one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin:
    “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”

    ReplyDelete
  87. I just find it so ironic that what this whole page is really about is hating on Obama. If this was happening on a Bush's watch or any other Republican it would all be hushed and I am pretty sure Mr. Tyner you would not complain at all. You would actually take the opposite position and support it. In my opinion this is what makes me laugh so much. Homeland Security and TSA was instituted under Bush and Republicans. Obama's leadership has actually lead to more captures in two years than all the time under Bush. Why didn't you complain about security tactics in the past? That's it from me Mr Tyner. Now that you put yourself out there you get to deal with all the scrutiny and threats that come along with making your agenda public. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  88. "Anti-govt at all costs" civil libertarians mis-quote and misapply that quote on a continuous basis. Lets consider reality:

    The quote is actually (from the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty) "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    Note that you have dropped "essential' and "little".. Civil Libertarians ALWAYS misquote it in that way.. WHY? Why do you have such a problem getting the actual quote correct?

    You are mis-quoting it to better support your "any govt control of the activities of the populace in any form threatens our liberty", which is CLEARLY NOT what BF was saying.

    Civil Libertarians hate all things associated with the govt, so they attempt to produce "arguments" against everything the govt does, no matter how naive, irrational, self contradictory those arguments are. If manipulation of facts is necessary to achieve the result, then so be it.

    Reality is messy:
    - the Govt is charged with protecting the populace
    - security is a pain in the neck, you are always going to have to trade off safety with convenience
    - airport security by the TSA doesn’t threaten our “essential liberty”
    - we aren’t talking about a “little safety” here, terrorism is a huge issue

    but, dont let this stop you.. by all means continue to misquote and misapply the quote.. just dont kid yourself that you are constructing a logical data driven argument.

    ReplyDelete
  89. http://www.bartleby.com/73/1056.html

    QUOTATION: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "
    ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963).

    This quotation, slightly altered, is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”


    LOL
    I guess Mr. Tyner's not worrying about getting the facts correct..

    ReplyDelete
  90. So reminiscent of what Mr. Feld, my torts professor, told us about calculating relative risks. The riskiest thing you can ever do is get out of bed in the morning. Following that in some order are trying to take a bath (you could slip and fall in the tub), climbing staircases (you could trip and break your neck), crossing streets (if you live in my neighborhood, you could slip on the ice and get run over by a light rail train, which is not a good way to end), and driving a car (never been in an automobile accident? I can say it's not a great deal of fun, and I didn't even die).

    It's not possible to design a society that sets all risks equal to zero, and if it were I'm not so sure it would be the sort of place I'd want to live.

    ReplyDelete

Please be relevant, civil, and brief... in that order.