TSA logic

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Blueskies wrote:

Is the airline now responsible for replacing the bag and contents?

I hope the victim sues the TSA and gets huge amounts of publicity.

Probably won't get very far, since she's the one who mentioned "bomb"
to security people. Even though the TSA actions were clearly
vindictive, rather than addressing any real security risk.

If they had retained her *and* her bag, then blown up the bag at their
site, that would be one thing. Their decision to ship the bag could be
seen as an admission on their part that they *knew* the bag was harmless.
So, why wouldn't something so obvious to us be able to be successfully
pursued by a lawyer?

Or perhaps the people on the flight with the bag that the TSA
obviously believed unsafe enough to destroy should be taking the TSA
losers to court...or at least the court of public opinion.

Now *that* seems like a good tack. It's absurd that the TSA rules
were not followed closely enough to avoid "endangering" the flight in
the first place. How blowing the bag up after the fact addresses the
TSA's own failure is beyond me.

I'd think that comprehending how this helped is beyond any rational
person. So, perhaps both the individual who lost her bag *and* the
passengers on the plane have a grievance that could, at the very least,
get some heads to roll.

The whole thing is stupid, but I would be surprised if there are any
repurcussions to the TSA. They have a blank check to screw whomever
they want. Welcome to the post-9/11 "Land of the Used to be Free".

The TSA may not suffer any consequences, but TSA employees might.
Unfortunately, given the way media works, we're not likely to find out one
way or the other.

Regards,

Neil