The TSA certainly seems to be catch some number of potential incidents
Should have been more clear (oh wait just reread my comment and I already was clear on this your point is irrelevant): incidents of actual terrorism and not people forgetting something in their bag with 0 intention of actually doing something with it. They also love to take shit that should be allowed, too, because they’re thieves on a power trip
But one more notable consequence of the TSA (and contemporary international organizations) has been a sharp plunge in the frequency of airplane hijackings, which I certainly appreciate.
Not the TSA at all, that’s the air Marshalls and other increased security in the actual plane like hard locked cockpits
incidents of actual terrorism and not people forgetting something in their bag
You’re backing yourself into a corner, because you now seem to acknowledge TSA is doing something, you just think its a thing that only applies to “good” people rather than “bad” people.
And your rubric is contradictory. If the TSA stops you with a gun before you get on the plane, you get to say “My bad, please just let me off with warning” or they’ve failed at their jobs. But if you let someone with a gun onto a plane and then they hijack the plane, they’ve failed to stop a terrorist. How does a TSA agent stop a terrorist incident on these terms? Is the argument that the TSA is useless because terrorist attacks aren’t being thwarted at the moment the individual passes through the metal detector?
air Marshalls and other increased security in the actual plane like hard locked cockpits
Are additional measures that help screen for less-conventional weapons and strategies. But, again, we seem to be using “stopped a terrorist attack” as only happening after it has begun. TSA isn’t on board the planes, so there’s no way they can ever do the thing you’re giving Air Marshals and locked doors credit for.
That TSA as a first-stage screen reduces the number of incidents air marshals and door locks have to prevent as a last resort doesn’t seem to matter.
Should have been more clear (oh wait just reread my comment and I already was clear on this your point is irrelevant): incidents of actual terrorism and not people forgetting something in their bag with 0 intention of actually doing something with it. They also love to take shit that should be allowed, too, because they’re thieves on a power trip
Not the TSA at all, that’s the air Marshalls and other increased security in the actual plane like hard locked cockpits
You’re backing yourself into a corner, because you now seem to acknowledge TSA is doing something, you just think its a thing that only applies to “good” people rather than “bad” people.
And your rubric is contradictory. If the TSA stops you with a gun before you get on the plane, you get to say “My bad, please just let me off with warning” or they’ve failed at their jobs. But if you let someone with a gun onto a plane and then they hijack the plane, they’ve failed to stop a terrorist. How does a TSA agent stop a terrorist incident on these terms? Is the argument that the TSA is useless because terrorist attacks aren’t being thwarted at the moment the individual passes through the metal detector?
Are additional measures that help screen for less-conventional weapons and strategies. But, again, we seem to be using “stopped a terrorist attack” as only happening after it has begun. TSA isn’t on board the planes, so there’s no way they can ever do the thing you’re giving Air Marshals and locked doors credit for.
That TSA as a first-stage screen reduces the number of incidents air marshals and door locks have to prevent as a last resort doesn’t seem to matter.
Leave it to Weevil to be entirely unable to read