Americans Held Hostage by Al Qaeda

[Greed]

This used to be nothing more than an Onion News headline but not anymore.

So thanks to all the perpetually scared people who fear everything, the TSA is shifting to trains because apparently you can drive a train into a building.


TSA 'Viper' team makes appearance in Emeryville
Updated at 11:07 AM today
Laura Anthony

EMERYVILLE, Calif. (KGO) -- People are used to seeing TSA inspectors at airports but on Wednesday, a specialized team made their presence known at the Amtrak station in Emeryville. Train stations are difficult to secure because they're so wide open but on Wednesday, the TSA showed up unannounced to let the public, especially potential troublemakers, know that they are keeping an eye on the rails.

Amtrak passenger Vera Molina said she noticed all the black-clad TSA inspectors right away and it's a presence she appreciates. Asked if she would like to see them more often she said, "I would, can't hurt, just in case you never know." As part of their nationwide "Viper Team" effort, the Transportation Safety Administration put about a dozen agents at the station to see and be seen, although some of the inspectors also work undercover.

"The visible deterrent is making a presence known at the station, getting on the train, talking to passengers, lettings the bad guys know that we're here, and letting the passengers know that we're here, and working with law enforcement to really tailor our Viper teams to their needs," TSA spokesman Nico Melendez said.

The idea is to look for signs of trouble in a place that can be difficult to police because of its wide open environment. That said, the TSA and Amtrak believe that working together they can make rail travel as safe as it can be. "We do have random baggage checks and we do have, at some of the larger stations, we have canine units and we do random sweeps of stations, tracks, infrastructure," Amtrak spokesperson Vernae Graham said.

Some of those who regularly travel on Amtrak said they think the current level of security s just enough. Passenger Greg Hayes said he wouldn't' want to go through screening. "No, no. I would hope that we don't come to that. I can't see trains being really the source of a security problem, but then maybe I'm not imaginative enough," he said.

The TSA's Viper teams aren't just used to patrol transportation sites like train stations. They also have been used and will be used at high-profile events in the Bay Area.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=8957075

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Trains are used for mass transit and what does the "T" stand for in "TSA"?

I'm missing the problem on this one.

And F U for the misleading headline when there really is a situation where Americans are being held hostage.

 

[thoughtone]

This used to be nothing more than an Onion News headline but not anymore.

So thanks to all the perpetually scared people who fear everything, the TSA is shifting to trains because apparently you can drive a train into a building.

Ignorance is bliss. I guess the Iranian Hostage Criss was the TSA's fault...35 years before it was created.

Stretching!

 

[Greed]

Trains are used for mass transit and what does the "T" stand for in "TSA"?

I'm missing the problem on this one.

And F U for the misleading headline when there really is a situation where Americans are being held hostage.

The TSA exist because there was a perceived deficiency in security when it came to people using the actual transportation vehicle as the weapon of destruction.

The government had effective controls over explosive material since Oklahoma so that wasn't the worry. And firearms were also effectively prevented from getting on a plane.

The TSA came into being to stop individuals who would then improvise and use the plane to create mayhem.

Can you explain why we need the same oversight over the train and bus system? Like I said in the first post, can you drive a train into a building or use it as a weapon in another way?

As far as an American hostage, there has never not been an American held by political/religious/national extremist since 9-11. Maybe you should have cared about that reality before last week.

 

[Greed]

[/B]

Ignorance is bliss. I guess the Iranian Hostage Criss was the TSA's fault...35 years before it was created.

Stretching!

I'm going give you the benefit of the doubt and treat you like you're 6 years old instead of five.

Can you explain to me thoughtone, how the Iranian Hostage Crisis is related to my post?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

The TSA exist because there was a perceived deficiency in security when it came to people using the actual transportation vehicle as the weapon of destruction.

The government had effective controls over explosive material since Oklahoma so that wasn't the worry. And firearms were also effectively prevented from getting on a plane.

The TSA came into being to stop individuals who would then improvise and use the plane to create mayhem.

Can you explain why we need the same oversight over the train and bus system? Like I said in the first post, can you drive a train into a building or use it as a weapon in another way?

Why wouldn't we have the similar security measures for trains and bus systems, seeing as they transport millions of people every year? I'm not one for fighting the last battle and that seems to be what you're supporting: waiting until something happens before you engage proper security.

As far as an American hostage, there has never not been an American held by political/religious/national extremist since 9-11. Maybe you should have cared about that reality before last week.

So with that being true, you still used that trolling, bait title?
The F U stands.

 

[QueEx]

The TSA exist because there was a perceived deficiency in security . . .

Can you explain why we need the same oversight over the train and bus system? Like I said in the first post, can you drive a train into a building or use it as a weapon in another way?

Beats me.

Why would anyone think we could be struck by the kind of violence that struck trains in Madrid in 2004, in London in 2005, in Mumbai in 2006, in Mumbai's main train station in 2008 and in Russia in 2009 ???

Just because information taken from Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan in 2011 indicated that al Qaeda was mulling attacks on a handful of U.S. cities and that at least one security notice has been issued because evidence showed that Al Qaeda members discussed a plan to derail trains in the United States is no reason to be concerned.

<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=bestoftv/2011/05/05/exp.tsr.meserve.al.qaeda.plot.cnn" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=bestoftv/2011/05/05/exp.tsr.meserve.al.qaeda.plot.cnn" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="374"></embed></object>



​

`

 

[Greed]

Why wouldn't we have the similar security measures for trains and bus systems, seeing as they transport millions of people every year? I'm not one for fighting the last battle and that seems to be what you're supporting: waiting until something happens before you engage proper security.

Beats me.

Why would anyone think we could be struck by the kind of violence that struck trains in Madrid in 2004, in London in 2005, in Mumbai in 2006, in Mumbai's main train station in 2008 and in Russia in 2009 ???

Just because information taken from Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan in 2011 indicated that al Qaeda was mulling attacks on a handful of U.S. cities and that at least one security notice has been issued because evidence showed that Al Qaeda members discussed a plan to derail trains in the United States is no reason to be concerned.

<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=bestoftv/2011/05/05/exp.tsr.meserve.al.qaeda.plot.cnn" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=bestoftv/2011/05/05/exp.tsr.meserve.al.qaeda.plot.cnn" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="374"></embed></object>



​

`

Once again, are explosives on mass transportation the reason TSA exist? TSA came into existence to stop terroristic individuals from getting on a transportation vehicles and using that vehicle as the method of destruction because explosives and firearms threats were deemed to be effectively curbed.

If you disagree with that interpretation of history then say so. Don't waste time by asking what the difference is between a bus/train or plane.

TSA is trying to get a bigger budget and expand. I'm questioning the justification in the context of the reason TSA exist in the first place. You may consider it beating a dead horse, but everytime the government justifies a new action with an old reason it is logical to question the old reason.

WhySo with that being true, you still used that trolling, bait title?
The F U stands.

For whatever reason you want to use the word troll alot.

The title is valid based on whether you agree with it not. Al Qaeda dictates all of our national security considerations. Whether it's to kill an American with no due process or for a federal agent to walk around a Greyhound station like a badass.

 

[thoughtone]

Once again, are explosives on mass transportation the reason TSA exist? TSA came into existence to stop terroristic individuals from getting on a transportation vehicles and using that vehicle as the method of destruction because explosives and firearms threats were deemed to be effectively curbed.

If you disagree with that interpretation of history then say so. Don't waste time by asking what the difference is between a bus/train or plane.

TSA is trying to get a bigger budget and expand. I'm questioning the justification in the context of the reason TSA exist in the first place. You may consider it beating a dead horse, but everytime the government justifies a new action with an old reason it is logical to question the old reason.

TSA doesn't have to justify it's reach, it's mission from the start was to

protects the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.

So you think their should be no security or that it should be private security companies?

 

[Greed]

TSA doesn't have to justify it's reach, it's mission from the start was to

So you think their should be no security or that it should be private security companies?

Typical. All government expansions are good government expansions as long as it's under the preferred politicians.

Is there any government action above justification? Apparently you can cite many.

And why are you pretending as if it has just been luck so far in regards to why trains and buses aren't more pressing security concerns?

The current measures for security by the government agencies that track explosive materials, Amtrak, and the bus services have proven adequate 10 years after 9-11.

The TSA actually has a worse track record over the last decade than the three I mentioned.

 

[QueEx]

Typical. All government expansions are good government expansions as long as it's under the preferred politicians.

Is there any government action above justification? Apparently you can cite many.

Seems to me he answered your question directly with the mission statement from the TSA, straight from its webpage. And you responded with a "government expansions" arguement ??? C'mon bro, you baited the hook and when he bit strongly in response, you crawfished

The current measures for security by the government agencies that track explosive materials, Amtrak, and the bus services have proven adequate 10 years after 9-11.

. . . and the technology/security measures in place on 9/11/01 had proven adequate (because there were no similar attack) since 9/11/91 -- but that doesn't mean it was so, or does it





.

 

[Greed]

Seems to me he answered your question directly with the mission statement from the TSA, straight from its webpage. And you responded with a "government expansions" arguement ??? C'mon bro, you baited the hook and when he bit strongly in response, you crawfished




. . . and the technology/security measures in place on 9/11/01 had proven adequate (because there were no similar attack) since 9/11/91 -- but that doesn't mean it was so, or does it





.

It can only be considered a strong response to a like-minded individual. A person that isn't already predispose to favor a government expansion would ask the obvious questions like why TSA didn't exist before 9-11 since an explosive device on mass transit was already in the national security mindset. Or why TSA wasn't deployed in the train and bus infrastructure after 9-11 when it was deployed in the airports. Likely because the threat was defined in a way that distinguished planes from trains.

You citing a political statement by default is non-substantive because the very nature of politics is non- substantive. I bet the DoD has a statement somewhere about existing for the defense of America. How would such a statement coincide with your opinion of the Iraq War. It's outright stupid to grab the mission statement off the TSA website.

Plus, I don't see why you are comparing security mindsets before and after 9-11. The successful security measures I cited existed before 9-11 and worked since because they are designed to stop a non-9/11 type event. My point is a 9-11 type event, where the transportation vehicle itself is used as a weapon, is not considered a realistic threat for trains or buses. Or are you saying it is? If not, then why is TSA expanding it's influence there?

 

[QueEx]

Once again, are explosives on mass transportation the reason TSA exist?

YES, among others.

TSA came into existence to stop terroristic individuals from getting on a transportation vehicles and using that vehicle as the method of destruction because explosives and firearms threats were deemed to be effectively curbed.

Thats the way YOU define the mission. Even so, is that any different from "protect the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce" - as the TSA defines its mission ??? I don't think so.

If you disagree with that interpretation of history then say so.

Not only do I say so, the TSA seems to say so, as well.




`

 

[QueEx]

It can only be considered a strong response to a like-minded individual.

Once again, when you don't have a real response -- you divert to personalities !!! When the guy answered you, not just with his opinion, but the mission statement of the TSA -- YOU retort with -- "well, you guys just think alike - so what the TSA said doesn't matter." GTFOH !!!!

A person that isn't already predispose to favor a government expansion would ask the obvious questions like why TSA didn't exist before 9-11 since an explosive device on mass transit was already in the national security mindset.

And a person not predisposed to ideological bullshit would know that sometimes you attempt to defend some things after you've seen what can happen; and once you see a thing can happen, you try to plan on preventing things that you "perceive" are possible.

Or why TSA wasn't deployed in the train and bus infrastructure after 9-11 when it was deployed in the airports. Likely because the threat was defined in a way that distinguished planes from trains.

So YOU know what TSA deployments have been since 9-11 ??? Are you employed by TSA ??? If not, how do you know ??? Please, elaborate.

You citing a political statement by default is non-substantive

Exactly what does that mean ??? Please be specific.

I bet the DoD has a statement somewhere about existing [sic] for the defense of America. How would such a statement coincide with your opinion of the Iraq War. It's outright stupid to grab the mission statement off the TSA website.

Interesting Greed. I seem to have struck a rambling nerve

Stupid to "grab the mission statement off the TSA website"

Really. If I want to know what Greed thinks, I think I would ask Greed. No. ???





.

 

[Greed]

Once again, when you don't have a real response -- you divert to personalities !!! When the guy answered you, not just with his opinion, but the mission statement of the TSA -- YOU retort with -- "well, you guys just think alike - so what the TSA said doesn't matter." GTFOH !!!!

I have multiple responses, you just don't like any of them and in your world that's the same as not having them.

You complain about my reference to like-minded people as if the psychology of tribal politics doesn't completely dominate the current American system. America is only about your side.

And in regards to the mission statement, since when has this country had a habit of bureaucrats defining the politics of policies? Are you all of sudden going to ignore that we actively avoid agency and cabinet heads defining politics. It was only 10 years ago. Congress and the president debated and defined the Homeland Security apparatus. Some vague PC statement by any particular department, by nature, isn't designed to justify it's existence. That's why it's stupid to use something that barely ranks as a marketing statement as evidence of intent or action. The political bodies decides those things. Or is that not how it works?

And a person not predisposed to ideological bullshit would know that sometimes you attempt to defend some things after you've seen what can happen; and once you see a thing can happen, you try to plan on preventing things that you "perceive" are possible.

So TSA is trying to stop another 9-11 type event? Can you explain what is the perceive threat the train poses?

I've purposely defined the possibility of the threat broadly for the benefit of doubt. The transportation vehicle itself being used as a weapon. That's what they've seen could happen.

They've also been protecting against other threats they perceived happening before 9-11 and since without the TSA there. What risk is TSA reducing because it's not another 9-11? And a Madrid type attack isnt why they're there because TSA isn't charged with that responsibility. Unless you're going to construe their purposely vanilla mission statement to mean that too.

So YOU know what TSA deployments have been since 9-11 ??? Are you employed by TSA ??? If not, how do you know ??? Please, elaborate.

I don't anything about there covert deployments, but I do know what they've released publicly and it's not mass deployment of TSA agents in bus and train terminals.

Exactly what does that mean ??? Please be specific.

I provided the reason in this and the quoted post. If you don't understand something then ask. Don't act like I didn't write something in addition to what you quoted.

 

[QueEx]

I have multiple responses, you just don't like any of them and in your world that's the same as not having them.

You're right, non responsiveness doesn't count.

You complain about my reference to like-minded people as if the psychology of tribal politics doesn't completely dominate the current American system. America is only about your side.

Your side; my side -- the preoccupation with, sides.

Yes, I reject the notion that America is completely dominated by tribal politics. No question, a psychology of tribal politics does exist, but I firmly believe that it dwells more in the minds of certain ideologically-inclined individuals who apparently view life in general and politics in particular through ideological prisms. I don't believe, however, that most Americans are so ideologically bent; no, I believe the ideologically-inclined spend way too much time: attempting to define others to one side or another; attempting to woo others to one side or another; attempting to live on one side or another; and summarily rejecting the ideas of others based on their perceived notions of, one-side or another. And yes, that applies to those on either side of your sides who employ side-ology as guiding principles to a majority of their decisions and thought.

And in regards to the mission statement, since when has this country had a habit of bureaucrats defining the politics of policies?

What shoe have you resided for so long? Damn near every agency of government has a mission statement; one that attempts to define its focus and focus the employees working in that agency. Each branch of the military, the Navy, Marines, Army and Air Force, has a mission statement; the EPA has a mission statement, etc., et al. Hell, even THIS BOARD has a mission statement: This Forum brings together Brothers and Others in a continuous spirited debate and discussion of Politics, Race and People, including Past, Future and Current Events.

Are you all of sudden going to ignore that we actively avoid agency and cabinet heads defining politics.

No. But are you suddenly looking, once again, through YOUR ideological lens to tell us the way YOU think it should beomit, i.e., agencies and cabinets without mission statements? Oh, by the way, here is the mission statement of the United States Department of State: Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.

It was only 10 years ago. Congress and the president debated and defined the Homeland Security apparatus. [b\Some vague PC statement[/b] by any particular department, by nature, isn't designed to justify it's existence. That's why it's stupid to use something that barely ranks as a marketing statement as evidence of intent or action. The political bodies decides those things. Or is that not how it works?

Vague PC statements - not adopted by political bodies ???

The mission statement is embedded in and derived from an Act of the United States Congress (the "Aviation and Transportation Security Act" - Public Law 107-71 of the 107th Congress) adopted November 19, 2001:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress . . .

The Under Secretary shall be responsible for
security in <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">all modes of transportation</span>, including--

``(1) carrying out chapter 449, relating to civil aviation
security, and related research and development activities; and

``(2) <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">security responsibilities over other modes of
transportation that are exercised by the Department of
Transportation</span>.
​

. . .

``(f) Additional Duties and Powers.--In addition to carrying out the
functions specified in subsections (d) and (e), the Under Secretary
shall--

``(1) receive, assess, and distribute intelligence
information related to transportation security;
``(2) assess threats to transportation;
``(3) develop policies, strategies, and plans for dealing
with threats to transportation security;
``(4) make other plans related to transportation security,
including coordinating countermeasures with appropriate
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the United
States Government;
``(5) serve as the primary liaison for transportation
security to the intelligence and law enforcement communities;
``(6) on a day-to-day basis, manage and provide operational
guidance to the field security resources of the Administration,
including Federal Security Managers as provided by section
44933;
``(7) enforce security-related regulations and requirements;
``(8) identify and undertake research and development
activities necessary to enhance transportation security;
``(9) inspect, maintain, and test security facilities,
equipment, and systems;
``(10) ensure the adequacy of security measures for the
transportation of cargo;
``(11) oversee the implementation, and ensure the adequacy,
of security measures at airports and other transportation
facilities;
``(12) require background checks for airport security
screening personnel, individuals with access to secure areas
of airports, and other transportation security personnel;
``(13) work in conjunction with the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration with respect to any actions or
activities that may affect aviation safety or air carrier
operations;
``(14) work with the International Civil Aviation
Organization and appropriate aeronautic authorities of foreign
governments under section 44907 to address security concerns on
passenger flights by foreign air carriers in foreign air
transportation; and
``(15) carry out such other duties, and exercise such other
powers, relating to transportation security as the Under
Secretary considers appropriate, to the extent authorized by
law.
​

.

 

[QueEx]

So TSA is trying to stop another 9-11 type event? Can you explain what is the perceive threat the train poses?

Sorry, I don't have benefit of the intelligence in the hands of the Under Secretary, neither do I (nor you, for that matter) have the-need-to-know that information (the talisman for being authorized access to intelligence).

They've also been protecting against other threats they perceived happening before 9-11 and since without the TSA there. What risk is TSA reducing because it's not another 9-11? And a Madrid type attack isnt why they're there because TSA isn't charged with that responsibility. Unless you're going to construe their purposely vanilla mission statement to mean that too.


I don't anything about there covert deployments, but I do know what they've released publicly and it's not mass deployment of TSA agents in bus and train terminals.

Maybe you should have read the Aviation and Transportation Security Act first



.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I walked away from this one a while ago. When the person who calls Thoughtone a "troll" in nearly every thread said I used the word "troll" a lot, I knew this was going to be an exercise of banging one's head against a brickwall.

I mean the concept of thinking it's government overreach when they want to heighten security on the government's trains(Amtrak)is an odd one. Particularly when it's been a long complaint that the trains and shipping ports are still not being protected to an adequate degree.

 

[thoughtone]

TSA doesn't have to justify it's reach, it's mission from the start was to...

So you think their should be no security or that it should be private security companies?

Typical. All government expansions are good government expansions as long as it's under the preferred politicians.

C'mon bro, you baited the hook and when he bit strongly in response, you crawfished

I never said I was pro or con TSA. I just posted a fact.


And you still don't know my views on the TSA.

 

[Greed]

I walked away from this one a while ago. When the person who calls Thoughtone a "troll" in nearly every thread said I used the word "troll" a lot, I knew this was going to be an exercise of banging one's head against a brickwall.

I mean the concept of thinking it's government overreach when they want to heighten security on the government's trains(Amtrak)is an odd one. Particularly when it's been a long complaint that the trains and shipping ports are still not being protected to an adequate degree.

I purposely brought attention to your use of "troll" because you were obviously using it gratuitously. Thoughtone purposely invites people to take him and his premise seriously, and when they do he SHITS on them. In the same thread you defending his trollness, someone who didn't know his nature tried to engage him seriously. Thoughtone proceeded to question that poster's education level as a response because he didn't like the way the guy phrased the question.

That's the nature of trolling, to draw you in then shit on you without shame. Have I ever not taken your posts at face value? Have I ever given you the impression that I respond with less effort than the originating post of any member?

 

[Greed]

You're right, non responsiveness doesn't count.




Your side; my side -- the preoccupation with, sides.

Yes, I reject the notion that America is completely dominated by tribal politics. No question, a psychology of tribal politics does exist, but I firmly believe that it dwells more in the minds of certain ideologically-inclined individuals who apparently view life in general and politics in particular through ideological prisms. I don't believe, however, that most Americans are so ideologically bent; no, I believe the ideologically-inclined spend way too much time: attempting to define others to one side or another; attempting to woo others to one side or another; attempting to live on one side or another; and summarily rejecting the ideas of others based on their perceived notions of, one-side or another. And yes, that applies to those on either side of your sides who employ side-ology as guiding principles to a majority of their decisions and thought.





What shoe have you resided for so long? Damn near every agency of government has a mission statement; one that attempts to define its focus and focus the employees working in that agency. Each branch of the military, the Navy, Marines, Army and Air Force, has a mission statement; the EPA has a mission statement, etc., et al. Hell, even THIS BOARD has a mission statement: This Forum brings together Brothers and Others in a continuous spirited debate and discussion of Politics, Race and People, including Past, Future and Current Events.




No. But are you suddenly looking, once again, through YOUR ideological lens to tell us the way YOU think it should beomit, i.e., agencies and cabinets without mission statements? Oh, by the way, here is the mission statement of the United States Department of State: Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.




Vague PC statements - not adopted by political bodies ???

The mission statement is embedded in and derived from an Act of the United States Congress (the "Aviation and Transportation Security Act" - Public Law 107-71 of the 107th Congress) adopted November 19, 2001:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress . . .

The Under Secretary shall be responsible for
security in <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">all modes of transportation</span>, including--

``(1) carrying out chapter 449, relating to civil aviation
security, and related research and development activities; and

``(2) <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">security responsibilities over other modes of
transportation that are exercised by the Department of
Transportation</span>.
​

. . .

``(f) Additional Duties and Powers.--In addition to carrying out the
functions specified in subsections (d) and (e), the Under Secretary
shall--

``(1) receive, assess, and distribute intelligence
information related to transportation security;
``(2) assess threats to transportation;
``(3) develop policies, strategies, and plans for dealing
with threats to transportation security;
``(4) make other plans related to transportation security,
including coordinating countermeasures with appropriate
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the United
States Government;
``(5) serve as the primary liaison for transportation
security to the intelligence and law enforcement communities;
``(6) on a day-to-day basis, manage and provide operational
guidance to the field security resources of the Administration,
including Federal Security Managers as provided by section
44933;
``(7) enforce security-related regulations and requirements;
``(8) identify and undertake research and development
activities necessary to enhance transportation security;
``(9) inspect, maintain, and test security facilities,
equipment, and systems;
``(10) ensure the adequacy of security measures for the
transportation of cargo;
``(11) oversee the implementation, and ensure the adequacy,
of security measures at airports and other transportation
facilities;
``(12) require background checks for airport security
screening personnel, individuals with access to secure areas
of airports, and other transportation security personnel;
``(13) work in conjunction with the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration with respect to any actions or
activities that may affect aviation safety or air carrier
operations;
``(14) work with the International Civil Aviation
Organization and appropriate aeronautic authorities of foreign
governments under section 44907 to address security concerns on
passenger flights by foreign air carriers in foreign air
transportation; and
``(15) carry out such other duties, and exercise such other
powers, relating to transportation security as the Under
Secretary considers appropriate, to the extent authorized by
law.
​

.

I called the mission statement non-substanative, vanilla, PC, and and nothing more more than a marketing statement. OK, Congress initiated it. Now what?

Once again, for the fourth time, what is it about the mission statement that explains why they are moving, in force, into the trains and bus terminals.

If their mission was to treat train and bus security the same as plane security, then why have they just shifted to lock down these terminals 12 years after 9-11 and 12 years after it was their mission to do so?

Were they negligent even though they were tasked to do so? Or was it not part of their mission and they are now expanding?

You pretend as if tribal politics isn't the primary driver of whether the average citizen gives sanction to this expansion when you actually received congratulatory post when they felt you scored a point off me.

Is there a reason both of them came out of the woodworks to cheerlead if not for the perception of a side, which you advanced?

Once again the three of you have a mentality which is a detriment to people.

Its fine if the three of you think that the point of this thread and exchange was whether the mission statement was initially included in the 600 page law and not whether the law and the mission statement justified a 12 year after the fact excuse to expand another government security agency.

You don't have to argue in good faith since its already a done deal. The only question is will you say thank you for this assfucking too.

 

[QueEx]

Lil boi, when you can't get your way; when others shut your ass down, you abandon the argument -- and go for the personals -- every-fucking-time.

(you did it with the Troll language; you constantly referred to T.O. as Troll -- even though you were following his post tit-for-tat, a-k-a Trolling) and U.D. called you on it;

(you lumped 3 other posters together because you didn't like what they had to say - and when called on it, again, you abandon all argument -- and opt for the personals;





.

 

[QueEx]

I called the mission statement non-substanative, vanilla, PC, and and nothing more more than a marketing statement. OK, Congress initiated it. Now what?

And in regards to the mission statement, since when has this country had a habit of bureaucrats defining the politics of policies?

The mission statement is embedded in and derived from an Act of the United States Congress (the "Aviation and Transportation Security Act" - Public Law 107-71 of the 107th Congress) adopted November 19, 2001:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress . . .​

It wasn't bureaucrats, it was Congress. Like it or not, Congress sets policy. The mission statement was Congress' policy statement.

I could do this with the other statements you made; but then you would only get personal . . .



.

 

[Greed]

I purposely brought attention to your use of "troll" because you were obviously using it gratuitously. Thoughtone purposely invites people to take him and his premise seriously, and when they do he SHITS on them. In the same thread you defending his trollness, someone who didn't know his nature tried to engage him seriously. Thoughtone proceeded to question that poster's education level as a response because he didn't like the way the guy phrased the question.

That's the nature of trolling, to draw you in then shit on you without shame. Have I ever not taken your posts at face value? Have I ever given you the impression that I respond with less effort than the originating post of any member?

Lil boi, when you can't get your way; when others shut your ass down, you abandon the argument -- and go for the personals -- every-fucking-time.

(you did it with the Troll language; you constantly referred to T.O. as Troll -- even though you were following his post tit-for-tat, a-k-a Trolling) and U.D. called you on it;

(you lumped 3 other posters together because you didn't like what they had to say - and when called on it, again, you abandon all argument -- and opt for the personals;





.

Between the two of us, I explained what a troll is. People can make their choice which one of us makes sense. And people can decide if he and I are both trolls as they consider whether I treat poster responses in the same way he does.

 

[Greed]

​

It wasn't bureaucrats, it was Congress. Like it or not, Congress sets policy. The mission statement was Congress' policy statement.

I could do this with the other statements you made; but then you would only get personal . . .



.

Yes, for 12 years the policy Congress set forth had been in effect. They dictated the actions TSA was meant to take.