6 ms·

Okay, here's my question: Regardless of whether "the Administration" cut this petition short or not, what is the benefit of keeping the TSA around? No, no, I

Okay, here's my question: Regardless of whether "the Administration" cut this petition short or not, what is the benefit of keeping the TSA around? No, no, I don't mean because they're ineffective or violating our rights or anything like that (although those points are valid as well) -- my question is what is the political motivation for keeping the TSA intact? Sure, you could argue that some conservatives (that hate everything Obama does anyway) would get more riled up about "helping the terrorists," but those people will never vote democrat anyway. In fact, you could even argue that some die-hard conservatives would applaud Obama for ending the violation of citizens' rights. If the government knows how ineffective the TSA is (and always has been), and how much most people dislike the organization, does it make sense to hold out on the TSA until it gets closer an election, then dissolve it? Is the TSA still active as an ace-up-the-sleeve of political clout? If not, what is the political reason for keeping them around? I really can't figure it out.

tchunin 14y ago
It could be an economic reason, as in increasing the sense of flyer 'security' (despite being an utter failure). Consumer thinks, "I exposed myself so that I can feel safe thinking everyone else was also exposed." Consumer is invested. It could also be a political barometer to our collective response to an increasing police state.
jey 14y ago
Most people believe the TSA is effective and is keeping us safe from terrorists. You'd need a way to convince everyone that it's not true to avoid the backlash.
- alextingle 14y ago
  Really?? I find that astonishing. Do you have a citation?
  - taligent 14y ago
    54% of people recently polled believe that the TSA is doing a Good or Excellent job. Only 12% of people believe they are doing a bad job. http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positi...
    - ScottBurson 14y ago
      Downvoted? Yes, it's bad news, but let's not shoot the messenger, shall we?
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    It would be just as fair to get a citation for any claim that most people think otherwise...
- r0s 14y ago
  Most people don't have an opinion on the issue either way.
  - taligent 14y ago
    Actually you're wrong. Only 4% of people recently polled have no opinion on whether the TSA is doing a good job or not.
    - r0s 14y ago
      Is this a real poll? Why do you think you can just say that without qualifying it? Another recent poll shows that less than 4% of statistics are based on real data. Edit: Found it here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positi... Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults. Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted July 9-12, 2012, with a random sample of 1,014 adults. Landlines huh? Sounds like old conservative people.
      - taligent 14y ago
        Gallup is highly respected and aren't stupid. If you actually continued reading: "Samples are WEIGHTED by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number)."
        briandear 14y ago
        What does Hispanic ethnicity have to do with anything?
        chris_wot 14y ago
        A decent question! Another question - read the results here: http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/156494/TSA_Air_Travel_120808.pdf http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/156494/TSA_Air_Travel_120808... What does smoking or drinking have to do with this poll?
imtyler 14y ago
I was wondering the same thing. If there is some sort of conspiracy to keep the TSA alive no matter what, what would be the point. What's the end-game here? Perhaps the government has some sort of investment in Pepsi Co. and that's why you're not allowed to liquids on the plane anymore.
derekp7 14y ago
I've got a similar question from a slightly different position. What would happen if the government dissolved the TSA? There would still be airport screening, it would just go back to the airlines or individual airports. And some would be better, some worse, than the TSA. And there would still be regulations on what the individual screening groups must do (so we would still probably have the body scanners, enhanced pat downs, etc). And all that would be absolutely necessary, since the reason the TSA (and enhanced security) was put in was to keep the public confidence up so that they would continue to fly. Because not enough people flying, airlines go under, and we would really be in trouble with limited travel options. Most point-to-point routes would be eliminated, and you would have to get to your destination airport, rent a car, and drive another several hours to get to where your are going.
mapgrep 14y ago
The political motivation for keeping the TSA intact is that if you abolish the TSA and there's a terror attack or high-profile crime involving an airplane or airport, your political opponents can say "Sen. So-And-So put us at risk by being soft on terrorism." (Please keep in mind the truth of such a claim has little bearing on the political calculus, and that we can't count on an arbitrary politician to correctly calibrate the likelihood of an airborne terrorist attack post 9/11.)
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - taligent 14y ago
    > But bombs, real and fake, get past the TSA on a regular basis. Look this isn't Reddit where you can just make up any nonsense. If you are going to make statements like this have some proof.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
      - taligent 14y ago
        Right so you only have one actual example of a serious breach there post 9/11 (when the TSA changes were made). And no the screening doesn't have to be 100%. It never will be nor does anyone seriously think it will be.
    - jkestner 14y ago
      Just Google "TSA test fail" or something similar. There's enough real news coverage.
  - GoodIntentions 14y ago
    >> but I think our only hope is for an "incident" that shows how pointless this all is. That would be held up as proof to clearly indicate that the current measures do not go far enough. More tax$$ would be spent, more rights destroyed. This is how classic terrorism expects to 'win' - By forcing reactionary measures that oppress the populace to the point they rise up and liberate themselves. It rarely works historically and certainly won't in the US.
slurgfest 14y ago
To be productive, your question should be about the political costs of being seen to destroy the TSA. This will also answer the question about the political motivation for keeping it. Consider also the reasons it was created (the real reasons) and the context in which it was created
- taligent 14y ago
  You will ALWAYS need a TSA. Every country has one. The question is in what form it is and what its role is.
  - briandear 14y ago
    No, what we need is having El Al run security for America's airports. Those guys don't play around and it's why El Al is the safest airline in the sky.
    - tzs 14y ago
      To be fair, though, the total air traffic in and out of Israel is relatively small. It's comparable to a decent regional US airport, such as Sacramento. Generally, security in a big operation is harder than security in a small operation. It's not at all clear that El Al's methods would work when applied to a system the size of the US.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Two reasons that's not going to happen: (i) As annoying as the TSA is, it is strictly speaking probably Constitutional; what they are doing falls under the "administrative search" category of "reasonable" under the 4th Amendment: (a) applied uniformly to all passengers, (b) tailored to specific administrative needs (ie, keeping explosives and weapons off planes), and (c) in some defensible way limited or minimal. They are pushing it with the body scanners, but who knows. El Al relies heavily on profiling; profiled searches are by definition not administrative, since they're done on suspicion. (ii) The TSA recruits people with advertisements on pizza boxes. El Al security personnel are trained (ie expensive) enough to do sophisticated subtextual behavior analysis while questioning people at length 1-on-1.
briandear 14y ago
If the TSA went away it wouldn't lead to more terrorism, contractors would resume TSA duties as they do in some airports already. However, since the TSA in now unionized and the private contractors were not, it's a big deal for Obama because he counts on union contributions for his campaign. It has nothing to do with security. The TSA hasn't caught a single terrorist or attempted terrorist during its entire tenure. Blaming the private screeners for 9-11 is a bit unfair because, if the TSA were operating under the same pre-9-11 rules, those guys would have made it on the plane as well. The TSA is also Janet "Big Sis" Napolitano's most visible way of exerting her own need for power. She obsessed with her fiefdom and the perks it provides. Obama also wouldn't dare cross Napolitano as it's clear she'd be able to body slam him without a second thought.

tchunin 14y ago

It could be an economic reason, as in increasing the sense of flyer 'security' (despite being an utter failure). Consumer thinks, "I exposed myself so that I can feel safe thinking everyone else was also exposed." Consumer is invested. It could also be a political barometer to our collective response to an increasing police state.

jey 14y ago

Most people believe the TSA is effective and is keeping us safe from terrorists. You'd need a way to convince everyone that it's not true to avoid the backlash.

alextingle 14y ago
Really?? I find that astonishing. Do you have a citation?
- taligent 14y ago
  54% of people recently polled believe that the TSA is doing a Good or Excellent job. Only 12% of people believe they are doing a bad job. http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positi...
  - ScottBurson 14y ago
    Downvoted? Yes, it's bad news, but let's not shoot the messenger, shall we?
- slurgfest 14y ago
  It would be just as fair to get a citation for any claim that most people think otherwise...
r0s 14y ago
Most people don't have an opinion on the issue either way.
- taligent 14y ago
  Actually you're wrong. Only 4% of people recently polled have no opinion on whether the TSA is doing a good job or not.
  - r0s 14y ago
    Is this a real poll? Why do you think you can just say that without qualifying it? Another recent poll shows that less than 4% of statistics are based on real data. Edit: Found it here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positi... Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults. Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted July 9-12, 2012, with a random sample of 1,014 adults. Landlines huh? Sounds like old conservative people.
    - taligent 14y ago
      Gallup is highly respected and aren't stupid. If you actually continued reading: "Samples are WEIGHTED by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number)."
      - briandear 14y ago
        What does Hispanic ethnicity have to do with anything?
        chris_wot 14y ago
        A decent question! Another question - read the results here: http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/156494/TSA_Air_Travel_120808.pdf http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/156494/TSA_Air_Travel_120808... What does smoking or drinking have to do with this poll?

imtyler 14y ago

I was wondering the same thing. If there is some sort of conspiracy to keep the TSA alive no matter what, what would be the point. What's the end-game here? Perhaps the government has some sort of investment in Pepsi Co. and that's why you're not allowed to liquids on the plane anymore.

derekp7 14y ago

I've got a similar question from a slightly different position. What would happen if the government dissolved the TSA? There would still be airport screening, it would just go back to the airlines or individual airports. And some would be better, some worse, than the TSA. And there would still be regulations on what the individual screening groups must do (so we would still probably have the body scanners, enhanced pat downs, etc). And all that would be absolutely necessary, since the reason the TSA (and enhanced security) was put in was to keep the public confidence up so that they would continue to fly. Because not enough people flying, airlines go under, and we would really be in trouble with limited travel options. Most point-to-point routes would be eliminated, and you would have to get to your destination airport, rent a car, and drive another several hours to get to where your are going.

mapgrep 14y ago

The political motivation for keeping the TSA intact is that if you abolish the TSA and there's a terror attack or high-profile crime involving an airplane or airport, your political opponents can say "Sen. So-And-So put us at risk by being soft on terrorism." (Please keep in mind the truth of such a claim has little bearing on the political calculus, and that we can't count on an arbitrary politician to correctly calibrate the likelihood of an airborne terrorist attack post 9/11.)

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- taligent 14y ago
  > But bombs, real and fake, get past the TSA on a regular basis. Look this isn't Reddit where you can just make up any nonsense. If you are going to make statements like this have some proof.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
    - taligent 14y ago
      Right so you only have one actual example of a serious breach there post 9/11 (when the TSA changes were made). And no the screening doesn't have to be 100%. It never will be nor does anyone seriously think it will be.
  - jkestner 14y ago
    Just Google "TSA test fail" or something similar. There's enough real news coverage.
- GoodIntentions 14y ago
  >> but I think our only hope is for an "incident" that shows how pointless this all is. That would be held up as proof to clearly indicate that the current measures do not go far enough. More tax$$ would be spent, more rights destroyed. This is how classic terrorism expects to 'win' - By forcing reactionary measures that oppress the populace to the point they rise up and liberate themselves. It rarely works historically and certainly won't in the US.

slurgfest 14y ago

To be productive, your question should be about the political costs of being seen to destroy the TSA. This will also answer the question about the political motivation for keeping it. Consider also the reasons it was created (the real reasons) and the context in which it was created

taligent 14y ago
You will ALWAYS need a TSA. Every country has one. The question is in what form it is and what its role is.
- briandear 14y ago
  No, what we need is having El Al run security for America's airports. Those guys don't play around and it's why El Al is the safest airline in the sky.
  - tzs 14y ago
    To be fair, though, the total air traffic in and out of Israel is relatively small. It's comparable to a decent regional US airport, such as Sacramento. Generally, security in a big operation is harder than security in a small operation. It's not at all clear that El Al's methods would work when applied to a system the size of the US.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Two reasons that's not going to happen: (i) As annoying as the TSA is, it is strictly speaking probably Constitutional; what they are doing falls under the "administrative search" category of "reasonable" under the 4th Amendment: (a) applied uniformly to all passengers, (b) tailored to specific administrative needs (ie, keeping explosives and weapons off planes), and (c) in some defensible way limited or minimal. They are pushing it with the body scanners, but who knows. El Al relies heavily on profiling; profiled searches are by definition not administrative, since they're done on suspicion. (ii) The TSA recruits people with advertisements on pizza boxes. El Al security personnel are trained (ie expensive) enough to do sophisticated subtextual behavior analysis while questioning people at length 1-on-1.

briandear 14y ago

If the TSA went away it wouldn't lead to more terrorism, contractors would resume TSA duties as they do in some airports already. However, since the TSA in now unionized and the private contractors were not, it's a big deal for Obama because he counts on union contributions for his campaign. It has nothing to do with security. The TSA hasn't caught a single terrorist or attempted terrorist during its entire tenure. Blaming the private screeners for 9-11 is a bit unfair because, if the TSA were operating under the same pre-9-11 rules, those guys would have made it on the plane as well. The TSA is also Janet "Big Sis" Napolitano's most visible way of exerting her own need for power. She obsessed with her fiefdom and the perks it provides. Obama also wouldn't dare cross Napolitano as it's clear she'd be able to body slam him without a second thought.