LIVING IN POVERTY THOSE PILOTS ARE.

What do you guys think of a plan to essentially cut out the TSA security drones and use that funding to fund more Air Marshals?

This is an excellent post. either TSA=Law enforcement officer or they need to GTFO

fyp

I know allot of airline pilots. a. they are no where near underpaid b. they are unbelievably level headed and clear in very high stress situations regardless of sleep etc.

Anyway I came to this thread to mention that I am doing another big photoshoot for Delta. Normally we do these at the maintenance center in here in town, but this time we are flying to a different city and meeting the new plane. I have been dealing with TSA for 2 weeks now getting everything worked out for me to bring in a 5 ton truck of lighting and electric gear plus lots of things like hairspray, makeup, and tools like leatherman knifes etc that are normal to a photo/video production. Final word just came down that I am going to be above the law and allowed to take all sorts of prohibited items inside the security bubble.

ANNNNNNDDDD now it looks like Obama may be flying in on the days we are there and that will shut everything down..... this job has been in the works for over a month and is in the 300K plus cost range.

My view on this is they should be able to perform reasonable searches to ensure safety, but beyond that they should have total blinders on. They should be looking only for things on a specific list of dangerous items like guns, bombs, knives, nail clippers and shampoo bottles over 3oz. If they see 30k in cash in your bag, they don't call in some feds to do a sweet asset forfeiture. They are required to ignore it as it isn't on the "dangerous" list. They see a bag of marijuana in a guys sock on the body scan, they must ignore it. A guy runs a duffle bag full of coke through the x-ray machine, they ignore it. They are there to keep weapons off of planes, period. Using their enhanced ability to search to enforce other unrelated laws should be strictly banned. All communications should be strictly monitored, and any TSA agent caught passing this kind of information to real cops should face jail time for civil rights violations.

I can live with that

they've already got control over the plane

Agree. (dangerous)

Agree. (in itself neither illegal nor dangerous)

Disagree. (illegal)

So? What does legality matter? As Adebisi said, these people have special privledge no one else has. To follow up on an earlier post of mine, no other law enforcement entity has the ability to perform such invasive searches without probable cause, except for border patrol, which I disagree with equally btw, but that's another point.

If these people are going to have the ability to conduct invasive searches, in the name of public safety, such information should not be prosecutable unless it is a violation of transportation safety.

It comes down to the legal definition of the term "agent". It is a fallacy to treat these people as essentially "informants" when they are acting as agents. These people are not calling the police stating "I think this man has cocaine", they are, under a commonly perceived color of law, conducting searches without probable cause, and, even though they lack statutory powers of arrest, are passing along information as well as seized evidence to law enforcement officers who are then prosecuting the case.

This, in my mind, turns them to agents of law enforcement, which in my mind creates a clear violation of the 4th amendment under the current system with them having ATF/DEA/FBI and local law enforcement on speed dial, routinely prosecuting at the bidding of the TSA.

This is similar to a situation where a law enforcement officer pays an individual who is a known to get inside a drug house for him. While this is currently an acceptable practice, you must be careful as to what role this individual plays, as his legal status can turn from informant to agent, and when he becomes an agent of law enforcement, any evidence he collects is subject to 4th amendment protections at trial. Unfortunately we've long passed the "informant/agent" test wrt TSA, and nothing appears to be being done about it.

I admit you have a point but don't forget that you submit yourself voluntarily to this search. I recognize that it isn't all that voluntary since there often are no good alternatives to flying. Also by that logic they could have checkpoints on a lot of streets ("Hey, you don't wanna be searched don't use that street. Simple.") and that's obviously unacceptable.
The difference is that airport checks are necessary to insure flight safety. Once we have a necessary search I think it is wrong to ignore felonies like a duffle bag full of cocaine.

ok, so that means they should have to carry a deadly weapon because they are the pilot?

I would argue that once a person or group is threatening deadly force while a plane is in the air control becomes a point of contention.

show your work

Your last sentence isn't related to the one before it. Cocaine and money aren't related to flight safety. TSA agents wouldn't have a reason to stop that.

Seriously? You want me to show that we have to keep people from bringing explosive materials on board? Or are you saying that there is a less invasive method to do that?

Well, I disagree with both the terms "voluntary" and "necessary" in your post.

As you stated, it is analogous to setting up checkpoints on streets , which is unacceptable. The scope of the search is also at issue, a police officer at a DUI checkpoint asking for your drivers license is wildly different in scope than a police officer removing you from the car, putting you through an xray machine while your vehicle is invasively searched, for no apparent reason that you were "randomly selected" for it.

I personally believe the invasiveness of this search would be greatly reduced if the agents were strictly allowed to prosecute for violations of safety, nothing more

Also, I disagree with the assumption these searches are necessary to accomplish public safety, but that's just my professional opinion and I have no citations, so we'll just leave it at IMO.

The current methods don't really do that. Every time TSA does any quality control they fail miserably at preventing bombs from getting on board.

In that case improve the methods they use instead of abolishing the checks all together.

Tell us the story of what happens when an overworked pilot screws up with the gun then.

Can't argue with that. TSA just seems intent on security theater rather than actual changes that could increase safety.

I'm confused why you picked this paragraph to post. It's not representative of the article as a whole.

I remember seeing on a news program once (don't remember where) that pilots typically graduate from flight school with a ton of debt as well.

I'm saying the TSA fails (miserably) at that. Look at their "top 10 success stories" and you'll see, none of them involve them stopping terrorists. There's ONE case on there of them stopping a US soldier who accidentally brought some C4 with him, but they didn't get him until the return trip!

And yet, despite an obvious LACK of ACTUAL checking (there's been tons of security THEATER but little ACTUAL SECURITY) there have been no terrorist hijackings since 9/11.

This is because

A) it's harder to get into the cockpit (locked, reinforced doors)
B) the passengers now will fight back instead of just sitting there and assuming the hijacker just wants to go to cuba

Take a look at how many people fly today vs pre deregulation prices and you will find the answer is a resounding yes.