It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When your job is to touch people's junk - Notes from the Screeners

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Just like with the police I'm sure there "good" TSA agents and "bad" TSA agents. I'm sure there are some that do enjoy the new power. But, kinda like how "bad cops" make up a minority of the police force - the "bad agents" probably make up a minority of the TSA.

So how do the rest of the agents feel about the new policy?

17 TSA agents responded to a recent request for their opinions.

TSA Enhanced Pat Downs : The Screeners Point Of View


A few days ago I contacted 20 TSA Transportation Security Officers (TSO) to ask their opinions of the new “enhanced” pat downs. Of the 20 I reached out to, 17 responded. All 17 who responded are at airports where the new “enhanced” pat down is in place … and the responses were all the same, that front line TSOs do not like the new pat downs and that they do not want to perform them. I expected most to not like the pat downs … but what I didn’t expect was that all 17 mentioned their morale being broken down.


To a person they all say it is getting to them. Here is what one had to say.


“Molester, pervert, disgusting, an embarrassment, creep. These are all words I have heard today at work describing me, said in my presence as I patted passengers down. These comments are painful and demoralizing, one day is bad enough, but I have to come back tomorrow, the next day and the day after that to keep hearing these comments. If something doesn’t change in the next two weeks I don’t know how much longer I can withstand this taunting. I go home and I cry. I am serving my country, I should not have to go home and cry after a day of honorably serving my country.”


Do I feel bad for them? Well - a little. They didn't make the policy. They just have to act on it. I know finding another job is very hard right now. But, they could quit or speak out from the inside if they felt strongly about it.

I've quit jobs before when I thought my employer was doing something that was not ethical. I have went up the management chain before when I saw or was asked to do things I thought was wrong.

It has been said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. The people of America are making their voices heard on this (or at least they are trying to). Hopefully, some of the TSA employees will stand up and say, "No - I refuse to do this" as well.




posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
They have a choice. They don't have to work there, just like we don't have to use commercial airlines. Remember that "I was just following orders" won't save you in the end.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Good Idea for Thread
we haven't heard this side much if at all.
I would notice though, no matter who quits in protest, there will eventually be a cadre of those who will do it with no compunction, and eventually they will have eliminated the queezy folk, and replaced them with hard cases.
Standard personal resource management tactics for the Corporation and the NWO
S&F



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
They don't have to. They choose, just as the passengers choose to fly, just as the citizens choose to allow their governments to do this "for their own good". Well, we make our choices, we have to take responsibility for our actions. We're all grown-ups here. I guarantee that things will change when people get enough, and from what I see, that day isn't far off.

The 70s much be Timewave Zero-ing right now, because I just heard "Power to the People" in my ears. Do it. Be the People again.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Well yes - that is the point. They do have a choice, they can speak out and/or quit. They can help stand against it.

Though as someone pointed out - if the TSA or government *really* wants to do this they would just fill the jobs with those more "suited" for such works.

There are always people who will do unsavory tasks if the price is right.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
This is becoming an example of the classic "No Win" situation:


The public demands that the Government protect its citizens from the threat of terrorist hijackers.

Responding to the increased governmental security measures, would-be terrorists adapt their tactics to defeat the measures.

With the public's demand for protection in mind, the government adopts new measures to screen out potential threats. But, because the nature of the threat has become so pervasive, due of course to the previous counter-terrorism measures, the government is forced to install security checks which the public finds unacceptable.


The ultimate outcome of this vicious circle of course will be the the Government, bowing to the Public's outraged demand, will pull back its counter-measures (in this case, stopping the "grope-downs" and "porno-scans"), a terrorist hijacker will slip through whatever counter-measures are left, and "innocent people" will die.



And the public will cry out in massed anguish (rallied no doubt by the appropriate political big-mouths) that It was all the Government's Fault for not Protecting the public like it should have!"




How about this; how about we adopt a Personal Responsibility" approach to airline safety?


As a passenger on any flight, you would be allowed "opt-out" of any security check you feel is unreasonable

However, you would be required to sign an affidavit stating that, if the flight you are on causes injury or death to any other person, anywhere, as a result of a hijacking or terrorist action, you, and your entire family will be held both legally (up to, and including, being prosecuted as the perpetrator of the act) and financially responsible.


Pens ready?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


Ill sign it if you let me carry concealed on the plane!



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BingeBob
 


You can carry anything you want, concealed anywhere you want to conceal it.


But you have to realize that the guy sitting next to you might be doing the same thing with a large wad of C-4, and the pocket calculator he just pulled out of his pocket ain't for figuring out a tip for the flight attendant.

So, Dirty Harry, who you gonna shoot if there ain't no "targets", just an explosion?


And Your family is now responsible for the lives lost, because You signed a piece of paper!



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Do I feel sorry for the Screeners...............no.

They are just like the Jews who, in order to stay alive and survive shoveled the bodies of their fellow men into the crematory ovens.

There is no on the fence when it comes to tyranny.

You either by your silence and compliance support it or by your voicing out and non compliance reject it.

We are coming close to a real prison planet, and now TPTB aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

With each year, they keep getting braver and braver.

We are now being reduced to being treated like cattle.

Heck, I treated my cows with more respect, I talked to them and soothe them.

Yes, I do agree we do need some kind of security, I don't know what but to do this procedure in front of everyone else is demoralizing and they know it.

If everyone refused to scan, fly and pat down the airlines would have to reconsider.

United we stand, divided we fall.

And we are falling, fast and deep.
edit on 20-11-2010 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I actually do feel for many of these TSA workers who are caught on the front lines of this. There are some that are obviously terrible people (like the ones who pulled the girls shirt down) but to be honest, that's a small percentile. The majority of them seem to be ordinary and good folks. Which really? Happens everywhere in life. There's always bad apples in a barrel full of good ones.

I think what needs to happen, is perhaps those good folks inside the TSA need to start standing up as well and take THEIR concerns to the DHS, the same way the flying public is starting to stand up. They're being forced to do this us, as much as we're being forced to undergo it. We need to target the REAL perpetrators of this heinousness - the DHS - not the TSA people who are being forced to do it, simply to keep their jobs.

I usually talk to the TSA screeners at O'Hare as I go through, because I'm an outgoing, friendly type of person, and it often takes me several minutes to get all my crap put back together again because I fly with a lot of electronics. My last trip back at Halloween I actually said to the guy I was glad I only had to do the metal detector because I would opt out of the Rapiscan. This didn't phase the TSA gentleman I was speaking to, in fact he was actually interested to hear why. When I told him it was due to the fact that I felt they just hadn't tested them for long enough, and I feared the radition, this gentleman nodded and agreed with my reasoning.

To those saying 'If they don't like it they can quit'... well, I sure as heck didn't like it when Big Sis said "If you don't like it don't fly', I think it's a bit unfair to say 'if you don't like it, then quit'. Especially in today's economy and job market.

Our anger and outrage needs to be directed at the source... the DHS. I just hope the good, reasonable folk that work at the TSA follow suit, and do the same. .

ETA: Also, remember, these NEW patdowns are as new for the screeners as they are for us. We don't know anything yet about if TSA workers HAVE been quitting or leaving their jobs because of this. It may well be as all of this debate picks up steam, some (or more) actually will leave their jobs if they can.
edit on 20-11-2010 by ProvehitoInAltum because: (no reason given)


ETA II: reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


The airlines themselves have nothing to do with hiring TSA. It is the airports themselves, not the airlines that make that decision. I was under the impression that the airlines are actually not too happy about what is going on at the moment, though I could be wrong.
edit on 20-11-2010 by ProvehitoInAltum because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


Well considering the explosives IQ of ALL OF THE TERRORISTS that have tried to use explosives...I think we would be ok considering their track record...

Im not convinced that all of the supposed (shoe/underpants/times square) attacks were supposed to go off. Terrorists have been blowing eachother up for a long long time in the middle east...They know how to make real bombs and they know where to set them off...Why blow yourself up on a plane thats on the tarmac with maybe 200 people on board when you could carry more explosives and kill 10000 people in the terminal?

Even with these new screen measures how do you know that the guy sitting next to you still doesnt have a wad of C4 in his butt ready to blow you all up? People can fit amazing things up there...ive seen it

Simple math to me...

9/11 was done by guys with boxcutters so in a similiar event the guys slicing up stewardesses would be the targets...but nice try to marginalize me



edit on 20-11-2010 by BingeBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


Hmmm.. you are making everyone responsible for the action of one. That is not personal responsibility. Why not just go totally old school and let everything stay within the family of the perpetrator?

It is a bit old school but how about signing an affidavit that if you cause injury to anyone by your actions on the plane, you, your immediate and extended family, friends and associates will be held will be held both legally (up to, and including, being prosecuted as the perpetrator of the act including the possibility of capital punishment) and financially responsible, wherever in the world they may reside.

Now that is personal responsibility - you run the risk of everyone you know and / or love being jailed, sued or killed if you blow up the plane.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 



I think that still is the same thing...The underpants bombers' father was trying to warn authorities at least 24 hours in advance. Under you guys' plan would he be held responsible if anything actually ever happened?



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by BingeBob
reply to post by Frogs
 



I think that still is the same thing...The underpants bombers' father was trying to warn authorities at least 24 hours in advance. Under you guys' plan would he be held responsible if anything actually ever happened?


Yup - that is the other part of it. If someone tells us - "Hey! This guy I know is going to do X!" We actually have to listen, have all our agencies work together and check it out in a timely manner. Something like in the case of the underwear bomber we didn't do so well.

There *are* things that can be done that don't involve taking pictures of or fondling each others naughty bits to ensure safe air travel.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs
Something like in the case of the underwear bomber we didn't do so well.

There *are* things that can be done that don't involve taking pictures of or fondling each others naughty bits to ensure safe air travel.



"Didnt do so well."??? Actually it was a complete failure that if you ask me constituted some heads to roll over at DHS.

The guy was on the no-fly list, paid for a 1-way ticket in cash and his own father was hootin' and hollerin' about his sons plan to blow stuff up.

I think the upper level of DHS shouldve been replaced for that one. Here we are facing sexual molestation or radiation exposure because they didnt do their job. Seems to be too many "perfect storms" in this decade.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by BingeBob
 


I do agree with that - it was a total screw-up.

Aside from the obvious tool to condition us to shut up, know our role, and submit to anything there is another reason (I think) for the way this is being gone about.

The other way, would involve agencies working together, a streamlining of tactics, profiling, etc. In other words, our government is like a big dumb guy with a sword. The cure for cancer he knows is using the sword to chop of the cancerous appendage and saying, "Sorry for the inconvenience - its for your own good." Other methods would require knowing how (and when) to do surgery - and the government simply isn't interested in learning.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by BingeBob
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


Well considering the explosives IQ of ALL OF THE TERRORISTS that have tried to use explosives...I think we would be ok considering their track record...

Im not convinced that all of the supposed (shoe/underpants/times square) attacks were supposed to go off. Terrorists have been blowing eachother up for a long long time in the middle east...They know how to make real bombs and they know where to set them off...Why blow yourself up on a plane thats on the tarmac with maybe 200 people on board when you could carry more explosives and kill 10000 people in the terminal?

Even with these new screen measures how do you know that the guy sitting next to you still doesnt have a wad of C4 in his butt ready to blow you all up? People can fit amazing things up there...ive seen it

Simple math to me...

9/11 was done by guys with boxcutters so in a similiar event the guys slicing up stewardesses would be the targets...but nice try to marginalize me



edit on 20-11-2010 by BingeBob because: (no reason given)



If everyone was allowed to opt out of any screening procedure they objected to, the likelyhood of the possibility that much larger, and much more professional and sophisticated weapons could be brought on board rises exponentialy.

If you can opt out of a search of your person, it will of course be argued that you should be allowed to opt out of a search of your baggage. If your bags cannot be searched, who's to say that you are not carrying a weapon of mass destruction in you carry-on bag? How big is a modern nuke off the black market?

How much Sarin , dumped into a ventilation system does it take to kill everyone in the airport.

How many people will be killed on the ground if an airliner is blown up over the middle of a city? If 9/11 had taken place just an hour or two later, the death toll could have been in the tens of thousands.


All of the terrorists that have used explosives have had to contend with security screening measures that would not have been in place if some one had not tried something similiar in the past. Every time you build a better mousetrap, a more determined (terrorist) mouse figures out a way to beat it.


And of course, the most basic flaw in your logic is that, freed from the prohibition of carrying loaded weapons on-board an airliner, potential hijackers would Still try to carry out their plans with improvised weapons, like box-cutters.

What makes you think they would'nt be armed (and in sufficient numbers) as well?


And apparently, you haven't even begun to consider the potentially disasterous effects of a mid-air, "OK Corral"-style, gunfight.



Look up "Explosive Decompression".



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 


Hmmm.. you are making everyone responsible for the action of one. That is not personal responsibility. Why not just go totally old school and let everything stay within the family of the perpetrator?

It is a bit old school but how about signing an affidavit that if you cause injury to anyone by your actions on the plane, you, your immediate and extended family, friends and associates will be held will be held both legally (up to, and including, being prosecuted as the perpetrator of the act including the possibility of capital punishment) and financially responsible, wherever in the world they may reside.

Now that is personal responsibility - you run the risk of everyone you know and / or love being jailed, sued or killed if you blow up the plane.










If you were not screened, how will anyone be able to say whether or not you weren't involved?

If you are going to insist that your right to privacy not be violated by a search method you feel is intrusive and/or illegal, how can the government deny that option to some one who's "moral outrage" is just a cover for a sinister plan?

In which case, you are opting to provide the terrorists the opportunity they need to cause harm. And since your's is an act of informed consent/dissent, you are, I believe, legally considered to be aiding and abetting the illegal acts that were made possible by your agreement.


Yes, we Are our brothers' keepers!



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 
Yes,but they are also doing something they know is wrong it doesn't take a genius to figure it out ,it's wrong on their part and it's wrong on everybody involved.Instead of crying about it they need to stand up and say no,all of them,that's why we are in this mess in the first place,not enough people standing up and saying no it's wrong and I'm not going to do it!!!



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by BingeBob
 


I agree 100% give us a free for all and we cannot hold the govt. responsible. The only check should be if the side arm is loaded with frangible rounds. (this is what is the air marshals are loaded with) it breaks apart into a powder when it hits something solid.

If the TSA wanted to fix the terrorist problem they could do it very easy. There are other ways.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join