4 ms·

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 ai

by 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.
- mapgrep 14y ago
  Really? It was really asking too much to ask you to read the second sentence of my post? Your reply has nothing to do with what can be said by a political opponent. The OP asked "what is the political motivation for keeping the TSA intact." I answered. If you want to rebut my political analysis, fine. This particular thread is not about the actual efficacy of the TSA. [Originally used more jerkish language. Sorry.]
  - jrockway 14y ago
    Your comment is also pure speculation. Has anyone ever abolished the TSA and then been not elected for being soft on terrorism? If not, why do you think that will happen? Or are you saying, politicians think there will be backlash and therefore stick to the status quo? (THIS is a 30k+ karma HN reader? -Forehead slap.- ) This is why it's recommended to not post linkbait political articles like this. But it's Saturday and it happens. You shouldn't expect much intelligent discourse, because there are no facts, only speculation.
    - mapgrep 14y ago
      I apologize for the karma comment, it was a jerk thing to do so I removed it. Sorry. That said, I really wish you wouldn't take the thread wildly offtopic, I was just trying to answer the guy's question. And I honestly wonder if you read my second sentence. >Your comment is also pure speculation It's informed speculation, but is it so far out on a limb to say politicians are risk-averse and want to avoid being seen as soft on terrorists? Obama in particular is keen to dodge right-wing charges that he is weak on, actively likes (!), or IS (!!) a terrorist. >are you saying, politicians think there will be backlash and therefore stick to the status quo? I am saying politicians believe abolishing the TSA is risky, and possibly beneficial for their opponents. The risk is enough to outweigh the political benefits to them from such a move. That is why a critical mass stick to the status quo. It is very easy for a politician to understand why he wants to avoid being seen as soft on terrorism. It is harder for a politician to understand why he should stick his neck out on airport hassles. This is about odds and costs and benefits, not about people being certain in a binary way that something will or will not happen. If enough politicians come to believe that favoring the abolition of the TSA could motivate voters to their side, they will favor that policy. In other words, I'm not saying the TSA is with us forever, I'm just trying to help explain why it's still with us.

by mapgrep 14y ago

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.
mapgrep 14y ago
Really? It was really asking too much to ask you to read the second sentence of my post? Your reply has nothing to do with what can be said by a political opponent. The OP asked "what is the political motivation for keeping the TSA intact." I answered. If you want to rebut my political analysis, fine. This particular thread is not about the actual efficacy of the TSA. [Originally used more jerkish language. Sorry.]
- jrockway 14y ago
  Your comment is also pure speculation. Has anyone ever abolished the TSA and then been not elected for being soft on terrorism? If not, why do you think that will happen? Or are you saying, politicians think there will be backlash and therefore stick to the status quo? (THIS is a 30k+ karma HN reader? -Forehead slap.- ) This is why it's recommended to not post linkbait political articles like this. But it's Saturday and it happens. You shouldn't expect much intelligent discourse, because there are no facts, only speculation.
  - mapgrep 14y ago
    I apologize for the karma comment, it was a jerk thing to do so I removed it. Sorry. That said, I really wish you wouldn't take the thread wildly offtopic, I was just trying to answer the guy's question. And I honestly wonder if you read my second sentence. >Your comment is also pure speculation It's informed speculation, but is it so far out on a limb to say politicians are risk-averse and want to avoid being seen as soft on terrorists? Obama in particular is keen to dodge right-wing charges that he is weak on, actively likes (!), or IS (!!) a terrorist. >are you saying, politicians think there will be backlash and therefore stick to the status quo? I am saying politicians believe abolishing the TSA is risky, and possibly beneficial for their opponents. The risk is enough to outweigh the political benefits to them from such a move. That is why a critical mass stick to the status quo. It is very easy for a politician to understand why he wants to avoid being seen as soft on terrorism. It is harder for a politician to understand why he should stick his neck out on airport hassles. This is about odds and costs and benefits, not about people being certain in a binary way that something will or will not happen. If enough politicians come to believe that favoring the abolition of the TSA could motivate voters to their side, they will favor that policy. In other words, I'm not saying the TSA is with us forever, I'm just trying to help explain why it's still with us.