View Full Version : Don't like the TSA? Just don't fly. Oh... wait...
mcantar18c
10-20-2011, 00:41
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2011/10/19/department-of-safety-and-homeland-security-partners-with-federal-and-state-agencies-in-statewide-security-operation/
They didn't name it the Transportation Security Administration by accident. By 'transportation,' they mean EVERY form of transportation up to and including pedestrians. Unless we are able to rein-in this explosive power grab by the federal government, I predict that the TSA, or its derivative, will become the most powerful law enforcement agency in the country within the next 5-10 years. They will in effect become the new Gestapo, reporting directly to the White House.
More...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20117058-281/homeland-security-moves-forward-with-pre-crime-detection/
Ever heard of the ZBV backscatter vans? They've already been put to use in NYC, ATL and Massachusetts. I suspect that they are quietly being used elsewhere.
This kind of technology could definitely have an effect on current carry methods and the strategies of discretion that good guys use.
There are effective methods to defeat this technology. Unfortunately, the use and misapplication of such methods may draw further interest and attention from prying digital eyes.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=111923&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=634139&highlight
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/19/x-ray-vans-security-measure-invasion-privacy/
Yes, I have my tinfoil underwear on tonight.
DD977GM2
10-20-2011, 00:43
Hope if the get rid of the ATF, that the TSA wont have some aspect of the ATFs previous roles and complete disregard for Americans rights.
Hope if the get rid of the ATF, that the TSA wont have some aspect of the ATFs previous roles and complete disregard for Americans rights.
[ROFL1][ROFL2][ROFL3][LOL][LOL][LOL]
Good one!
As a wise old man said on grumpy old men: "you can wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills up first "
DD977GM2
10-20-2011, 01:02
I read on ARFcom that the ATF was being considered for being disbanded and FBI would take over
operations and possibly Homeland Scurity and possibly TSA.
Cant find the damn thread now with the link.
'It's building a "prototype screening facility" that it hopes will use factors such as ethnicity, gender, breathing, and heart rate to "detect cues indicative of mal-intent.'
Interesting. Ethnicity and gender have a bearing on whether you are about to commit a crime.
BPTactical
10-20-2011, 06:00
"We need a private security force, as well funded and equipped as the military"
Where have I heard that before?
Translation- "I know I cant use the military within our borders to enforce my agenda so I will just make my own"
Brown Shirts
'It's building a "prototype screening facility" that it hopes will use factors such as ethnicity, gender, breathing, and heart rate to "detect cues indicative of mal-intent.'
Interesting. Ethnicity and gender have a bearing on whether you are about to commit a crime.
Haha! See I knew women were crazy and this will confirm it!!!
Byte Stryke
10-20-2011, 07:04
"Papieren bitte."
Great-Kazoo
10-20-2011, 07:37
I read on ARFcom that the ATF was being considered for being disbanded and FBI would take over
operations and possibly Homeland Scurity and possibly TSA.
Cant find the damn thread now with the link.
atf has already been rolled in to the TSA. a little bird told me they started this after 9-11
'It's building a "prototype screening facility" that it hopes will use factors such as ethnicity, gender, breathing, and heart rate to "detect cues indicative of mal-intent.'
Interesting. Ethnicity and gender have a bearing on whether you are about to commit a crime.
Does this sound like Minority Report to anyone? It sure does to me! "We're gonna punish you for a crime you have not committed... yet."
I was thinking the exact same thing.
OneGuy67
10-20-2011, 12:32
The ATF isn't part of the TSA. TSA is under the Department of Homeland Security and ATF is under the Department of Treasury. There were some movements with the U.S. Customs service merging with the U.S. Border Patrol. The Coast Guard was moved into the Department of Homeland Security.
I do worry about the TSA wanting to extend their reach into other parts of transportation. The Director of the TSA was in Pueblo awhile ago inspecting some railroad issues and was quoted as saying he would like the TSA to take over responsibility of the railroad security. I would not support that or any other movement to give TSA more responsibility or more power. TSA needs to be dismantled and the airport security turned back over to the airports and airlines.
TSA is part of DHS. It has a very limited law enforcement component; the Federal Air Marshal Service and an Internal Affairs unit.
BATF once was a part of Treasury, however, after the creation of DHS, BATF was relocated to the Dept of Justice:
http://www.atf.gov/about/
I will refrain from commenting on fictional movies, other than the fact that TSA is no where even close to the type of checkpoint seen in Total Recall.
As a suggestion to all interested travellers; don't bring firearms to a TSA checkpoint. If you forgot you have a gun in your bag, you are probably not being a very responsible gun owner. Don't pack flammable or explosive items in your checked luggage. It really doesn't make the flying experience any safer for the rest of us. If questioned by anyone from the government, use the good sense you were given and make the best decision you can come up with regarding answering the questions. If you don't want to answer, don't. TSA does not arrest people, I don't care how many news stories you have read. No blue uniformed TSA employee has the authority to arrest people. They call the local cops, who then use their training and experience to decide what should be done. Sometimes airline personnel are called and an individual airline will refuse to let someone fly based on the circumstances.
If anyone has proof that a TSA employee actually arrested someone, please share.
Oh, and by the way, I am actually not defending TSA as an agency. I just kind of get tired of the misinformation.
How would you (this is a general call to anyone who reads this) prevent another 9/11 tragedy? How would you make over 30,000 domestic airline flights each day in this country safe? I truly don't have an answer to either of those questions, but I know that for 10 years there have been plenty of so called experts who apparently know just how to fix the system. It is ironic that many people today want to return security to the same companies who were responsible on 9/11. Maybe the airlines have learned. Maybe they would do a better job than they did 10 years ago. After all, life is full of risks. Who do you trust?
Be safe citizens. [Beer]
mcantar18c
10-20-2011, 15:07
How would you (this is a general call to anyone who reads this) prevent another 9/11 tragedy? How would you make over 30,000 domestic airline flights each day in this country safe?
Allow passengers to carry on planes. Require that flight attendants and other staff on board be trained and armed.
Allow passengers to carry on planes. Require that flight attendants and other staff on board be trained and armed.
I don't disagree, but guns don't stop bombs. What else besides allowing armed passengers and crew?
mcantar18c
10-20-2011, 15:22
I don't disagree, but guns don't stop bombs. What else besides allowing armed passengers and crew?
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Flying on a commercial airline has its risks, just like any other form of public transportation. Rather than trying to make flying a completely safe and sterile thing, we need to look at how we can mitigate the risks. Allowing citizens to be armed while flying, and at the very least having an armed and trained crew, would do that.
Would it stop a bomb? Maybe not. But the presence of an armed authority (crew) and knowing that the person sitting next to you could be armed makes one think twice about doing something stupid. People generally don't commit crimes right in front of cops, right?
rockhound
10-20-2011, 15:22
buy ammo while you can
several rounds just arrived. best thing is my delivery guy brought it to me even though they had the wrong address on it. so the man thinks it went to my neighbor's house
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Flying on a commercial airline has its risks, just like any other form of public transportation. Rather than trying to make flying a completely safe and sterile thing, we need to look at how we can mitigate the risks. Allowing citizens to be armed while flying, and at the very least having an armed and trained crew, would do that.
Would it stop a bomb? Absolutely not. But the presence of an armed authority (crew) and knowing that the person sitting next to you could be armed makes one think twice about doing something stupid. People generally don't commit crimes right in front of cops, right?
I am not looking at it at all. I am asking for opinions and as I mentioned, I don't disagree with armed passengers and crew. The logistics and training are somewhat problematic, but not insurmountable.
If all you are trying to do is stop someone from taking hostages or control of an aircraft, you are correct in asserting the need for authority with force on board the aircraft with a little bit of the unknown regarding who else may also be able to stop an attack.
The bigger issue being addressed today in aviation security is not the armed attacker(s), but anyone whose aim is to cripple western economies by destroying the freedom to travel or transport goods. You don't have to have access to classified briefings to know that bringing a commercial airliner down is pretty high on the target list.
How would anyone here stop that from happening? Who would you trust to be responsible for that mission? In fairness, I don't have an answer. If I did, and I was in a position to implement that answer, I would probably be much better paid [Coffee]
Anyone with an opinion can destroy or criticize. Industrious people build and create. I believe that as Americans we have a history of being industrious people. I fear the trend in our country to destroy everything we dislike and criticize without constructive recommendations to improve.
"To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day."
Winston Churchill
All comments may be welcome, but not all comments are helpful [Beer]
trlcavscout
10-20-2011, 17:59
Allow passengers to carry on planes. Require that flight attendants and other staff on board be trained and armed.
I disagree! I do not want armed idiots on a plane with me. Now armed "trained" pilots or crew/air marshalls yes, but not just anyone. I dont fly unless I have to. I like to fly, just dont like the hassle/cost. And yes I know its safer then driving statistically.
I dont have any ideas/answers that people making way more money then me havent thought of I am sure. But I dont like the current system.
I disagree! I do not want armed idiots on a plane with me. Now armed "trained" pilots or crew/air marshalls yes, but not just anyone. I dont fly unless I have to. I like to fly, just dont like the hassle/cost. And yes I know its safer then driving statistically.
I dont have any ideas/answers that people making way more money then me havent thought of I am sure. But I dont like the current system.
I don't like the current system either. I know there must be better ways to provide more security than currently provided today by TSA. I just don't know what they are. Besides that, the current system is ridiculously expensive for the level of security provided.
Seamonkey
10-20-2011, 18:23
How would you (this is a general call to anyone who reads this) prevent another 9/11 tragedy? How would you make over 30,000 domestic airline flights each day in this country safe?
Awhile ago The Onion came out with just such a report. Ban all passengers on airplanes.
Awhile ago The Onion came out with just such a report. Ban all passengers on airplanes.
Here is a non-passenger airplane assault which almost resulted in major catastrophe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express_Flight_705
If passengers can carry on planes, then so can bad guys.
The TSA couldn't have prevent 9/11. The towers were hit by pilots that infiltrated from the inside. Could still happen again. Absolutely nothing about that aspect has changed.
The other planes that were taken down by guys with box knives were taken down because Americans are too used to someone else keeping them safe.
If passengers can carry on planes, then so can bad guys.
The TSA couldn't have prevent 9/11. The towers were hit by pilots that infiltrated from the inside. Could still happen again. Absolutely nothing about that aspect has changed.
The other planes that were taken down by guys with box knives were taken down because Americans are too used to someone else keeping them safe.
So your suggestion is? Again, the question is, how do you protect 30,000 daily domestic flights, and who do you trust with that mission?
hollohas
10-20-2011, 20:18
The bigger issue being addressed today in aviation security is not the armed attacker(s), but anyone whose aim is to cripple western economies by destroying the freedom to travel or transport goods. You don't have to have access to classified briefings to know that bringing a commercial airliner down is pretty high on the target list.
And the BGs have succeeded. Naked body scanners that violate the constitution, un-warranted searches...of a person's body no less. Don't like that then you get to have a person pat you down. Don't like that...then you get to go to the back room. Oh, sure you have a choice not to fly if you don't want a pat down or to have your naked body scanned but it is illegal to enter a security lane at an airport and then leave it before going through the screening process.
Citizen - "Mr. TSA, I refuse to get a pat down because it violates my right so I choose not to fly today."
Mr. TSA - "I'm sorry sir, you cannot do that or you will be held by the TSA and arrested by the police."
Our freedom to travel without our rights being violated has already been destroyed.
After all, life is full of risks. Who do you trust
Not the TSA. The TSA failed multiple times at stopping bombers from getting on planes. We are no safer than before 9/11 it's just that the recent bombers have failed on their own. Shoe Bomber? Underware bomber? Yup, TSA did a great job with them. Anyone know of an instance that the TSA has stopped a real BG?
Didn't think so.
And what do we get each time the TSA failed? New rules. 9/11 box cutters? Now we can't take nail clippers on the plane. Shoe bomber...now we take off our shoes and can't have large liquids. Underware bomber...now we get a naked scan.
Rectum bomber...oh crap, here we go, TSA will have an answer for that too I'm sure.
I don't disagree, but guns don't stop bombs. What else besides allowing armed passengers and crew?
Nope. But 9/11 wasn't a bomb. Guns sure do beat box cutters every time. I am not for citizens carrying guns on planes though. Crew only.
So your suggestion is? Again, the question is, how do you protect 30,000 daily domestic flights, and who do you trust with that mission?
You don't. You cannot make EVERYONE safe. There is risk in life and we need to balance that risk with our freedom. I fly EVERY SINGLE WEEK. And I would much rather have non-government security at airports. The problem with government run security is they are above the law. They can make any new regulation they want and no one can say diddly about it. Not the airline, not the passengers. We have zero say. That is wrong.
My suggestions.
1 - Take away the TSA and their limitless power.
2 - Have private security take over the job, managed by the airlines (and by connection, the passengers).
3 - Make it easier for pilots to carry. Right now it is a VERY complicated process paid for out of the pockets of the pilots who choose to do so. Few pilots carry.
4 - Target the threat. I'll give you a hint...It's not 90 yo grandmas, 1 yo kids or 28 yo business men who fly 2-4 times per week, every week (ME) that are the threat.
5 - Train the security personnel to read body language, threat, etc. Remove these people red flagged from line for additional screening. Don't believe this works? Read about how the men at the ticket counters that checked in two of the 9/11 BGs that had a gut feeling something was wrong. If they had been security men who had been trained to give additional screening to people that threw up red flags, maybe 9/11 would have been different.
6 - Require more from the security people. TSA personnel make nothing. We pay the people "protecting" our security like $30k per year and only require a GED. The vast majority of these people are DUMB. Very DUMB. This only happens in government. At DIA I have been through the bridge security at night with 10 other passengers in visual distance and there has been 50+ TSA there. 5-to-1. Not just one time, but this is true every time I fly after 8 or 9 pm. The government thinks they need far too many people (most likely because the employees are dumb) and so they pay less $$ to get more bodies. And less pay means less quality employee and less quality employee means more to do the job. Classic government. Private security would pay more, hire less, hire smart and train smart.
So your suggestion is? Again, the question is, how do you protect 30,000 daily domestic flights, and who do you trust with that mission?
I'm not offering to make any suggestions of solutions (this time). I can offer that it is retarded to go backwards by creating the TSA.
My suggestions.
1 - Take away the TSA and their limitless power.
No government agency has limitless power.
2 - Have private security take over the job, managed by the airlines (and by connection, the passengers).
This is how security was run on 9/11. It is possible to go back to the way things were, but it doesn't necessarily make things better.
3 - Make it easier for pilots to carry. Right now it is a VERY complicated process paid for out of the pockets of the pilots who choose to do so. Few pilots carry.
4 - Target the threat. I'll give you a hint...It's not 90 yo grandmas, 1 yo kids or 28 yo business men who fly 2-4 times per week, every week (ME) that are the threat.
The threat could be anyone. There are terrorists who recruit disabled and mentally ill children to carry bombs. Picking Waldo out in the photograph is not as easy as you would like to make it sound.
5 - Train the security personnel to read body language, threat, etc. Remove these people red flagged from line for additional screening. Don't believe this works? Read about how the men at the ticket counters that checked in two of the 9/11 BGs that had a gut feeling something was wrong. If they had been security men who had been trained to give additional screening to people that threw up red flags, maybe 9/11 would have been different.
Maybe, but some people call the behavior detection program now utilized by TSA, profiling and there are many people around the country who will point out the limitations of such a program. It takes years of experience to read people and even then no one is perfect.
6 - Require more from the security people. TSA personnel make nothing. We pay the people "protecting" our security like $30k per year and only require a GED. The vast majority of these people are DUMB. Very DUMB. This only happens in government. At DIA I have been through the bridge security at night with 10 other passengers in visual distance and there has been 50+ TSA there. 5-to-1. Not just one time, but this is true every time I fly after 8 or 9 pm. The government thinks they need far too many people (most likely because the employees are dumb) and so they pay less $$ to get more bodies. And less pay means less quality employee and less quality employee means more to do the job. Classic government. Private security would pay more, hire less, hire smart and train smart.
The assumption that private security pays more is just wrong. If you look at the private screeners in San Francisco vs the TSA screeners in Oakland, right across the bay, the private screeners make about the same and in some cases less money than the government screeners. They are about the same when it comes to their effectiveness. Both are hired from the same local population and they have similar attrition rates. Also, I would dispute that employees who get paid more are better employees. That is true some times, but we can all think of people who aren't worth what they make. Congressmen come to mind for me.
While I appreciate your suggestions, I would like to point out that some of your statements are wrong.
Here is some information about the shoe bomber and underwear bomber. Neither individual began their travels in the USA and so they were not screened by TSA.
On December 21, 2001, Reid attempted to board a flight from Paris, France to Miami, Florida, but his boarding was delayed because his disheveled physical appearance aroused the suspicions of the airline passenger screeners. Reid also did not answer all of their questions, and had not checked any luggage for the transatlantic flight. Additional screening by the French National Police resulted in Reid's being re-issued a ticket for a flight on the following day.[13] He returned to the Paris airport on December 22, 2001, and he boarded American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami, wearing his special shoes packed with plastic explosives in their hollowed-out bottoms.
On Christmas Day 2009, Abdulmutallab traveled from Ghana to Amsterdam, where he boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 en route to Detroit. He had purchased his ticket with cash in Ghana on December 16.[117] Eyewitnesses Kurt Haskell and Lori Haskell told the Detroit News that prior to boarding the plane they witnessed a "smartly dressed Indian man" helping Abdulmutallab onto the plane.[118] They also testify that the ticket agent refused to allow Abdulmutallab on the plane because he did not have his own passport.[119] These circumstances underlie some of the passengers' speculations that the U.S. government supplied a defective device to the perpetrator and a man in a tan suit with an American accent intervened, the matter was referred to a manager, and Abdulmutallab was then able to board the plane, presumably still without a passport
What, specifically, should have the airlines done to prevent 9/11?
What, specifically, should have the airlines done to prevent 9/11?
Good question, but that is a "what if" game. Examining past attacks can be useful, however current intelligence tends to me more useful in setting strategy.
IMO, the single most effective post 9/11 change has been the reinforced flight deck doors. It was a simple and relatively cost effective way of stopping a repeat of the 9/11 type of attack.
I also believe that prior to 9/11 there was no one really advocating for reinforced flight deck doors or better protection of that door when it is opened. 9/11 was a very costly way of learning that lesson.
How hard would it be to have another Lockerbie type bombing of a domestic aircraft? For that matter, how many Lockerbie style bombings of domestic aircraft would have to take place before aviation as we know it in the USA would cease to function?
9/11 required 19 men who trained for months. How many people would it take to put 5 bombs on 5 domestic aircraft leaving from 5 different airports on the same day? How many would be caught by TSA and how many would not be caught? What would be the consequences of those bombs going off in mid-flight over US cities? I wish I knew how I could prevent that from happening. Do you (this is to anyone who reads this, no one specifically)?
glockedandloaded
10-20-2011, 21:41
this makes us all safer... dont you see?
I told every one i knew this was coming
Good question, but that is a "what if" game. Examining past attacks can be useful, however current intelligence tends to me more useful in setting strategy.
Did any of the pilots break any rules while they went through training? Were the guys with box knives allowed to have those box knives? That's what I'm curious about.
hollohas
10-20-2011, 21:46
cstone, your points on the two bombers originating outside the US are well taken. However the point still stands that the TSA has no record of ever stopping anything that I am aware of. And also it points out the fact that these two bombers WERE red flagged...so perhaps behavior detection and profiling does work and is easier than you make it sound. It was the follow up to the red flag that didn't work.
The TSA can and does make new regulations that passengers MUST comply with on an almost daily basis. They effectively answer to no one (We The People) and that, to me, is almost limitless power.
My point about pay is that the lack of good pay does attract bad employees. By the TSA's own requirements TSA officers must only be 18yo, a US citizen (or US National), speak English, pass a drug test and have a GED. If you meet these requirements then they will pay you $29k/year.
Yup, TSA only wants the best men and women to protect our security.
And while SFO's security is run by the airport's own Operations Security Division, it is under the guidance and in compliance with ALL TSA regulations. Therefor it is no different than the TSA.
The TSA sucks by any indicator.
hollohas
10-20-2011, 22:05
How many people would it take to put 5 bombs on 5 domestic aircraft leaving from 5 different airports on the same day? How many would be caught by TSA and how many would not be caught? What would be the consequences of those bombs going off in mid-flight over US cities? I wish I knew how I could prevent that from happening. Do you (this is to anyone who reads this, no one specifically)?
You can't. At least not without totally violating damn near every right we have as Americans.
$hit happens. We can try to prevent it but that prevention should never infringe on our rights as it currently is.
The Feds could go door-to-door to find every single gun in the country and you can bet GUN CRIME would go down. Not all crime but gun crime would. We all agree that would be wrong and violate our right so instead we punish those who use guns for crime.
We could strip search every single passenger and take away any potential weapons much like we do inmates and you can bet plane bombings would be reduced. Not all terrorist bombings but plane bombings would. We all agree that would violate our right so instead we should focus on punishing those criminals.
I know the threat of punishment doesn't seem to stop many BGs but it's far better than punishing everyone by violating their rights.
The consequence of the type of bombings you mentioned would be drastic. Planes would be grounded and travel will be halted. Stock markets would fall and the economy would suffer. People would die. But far worse would be the government's response and subsequent further molestation of our rights in a severe manner. And not just at the airport.
Did any of the pilots break any rules while they went through training? Were the guys with box knives allowed to have those box knives? That's what I'm curious about.
The 19 9/11 terrorist attackers used box cutters to gain access to the flight decks where they killed the airline pilots. Then terrorists who had trained at US flight schools used that training to fly the airplanes into buildings. The terrorists became suicide pilots while those terrorist not flying the planes held the passengers at bay. The terrorists were completely successful in three out of four planes they took. On the fourth plane, United Airlines flight 93, the passengers fought back against the terrorists. The passengers and crew all died, however, they denied the terrorists the ability to carry out their attack on their target (supposedly the US Capitol).
http://www.nps.gov/flni/historyculture/index.htm
To answer your question, box cutters were not prohibited items on 9/11/2001. The FAA and Dept of Transportation regulated airline security and provided rules for how the private contract security companies around the country were to conduct business. These private contract security companies were paid by the airlines through the airports where they operated. All of the 9/11 terrorists who attended US flight schools were in compliance with US laws and regulations in place before 9/11/2001. In fact, everyone of them was in the US legally with a proper Visa issued by the US State Department.
On 9/11/2001, Huntleigh (http://www.huntleighusa.com/) was the private contract security company at DIA.
No system is fool proof, but only a fool takes no precautions. I suggest that either the government, airlines, or individual Americans should be given the mission of protecting the aviation industry. Whoever has that mission should be given the authority to make rules and regulations which will allow them to succeed in that mission. Regardless of who has the mission, if the Constitution or other laws are violated than We the People have redress to our legislators and courts to curb that authority and bring justice to the process.
TSA has been and will continue to be sued in courts around the country. Sometimes TSA wins and sometimes they lose. This is how it should be.
People everywhere have a right and obligation to criticize and complain about TSA and any other government agency. Sometimes the people are right and sometimes they are wrong.
I stand by the questions, how do you stop terrorists and who do you trust with that mission?
So the 9/11 terrorists literally broke zero rules until they high jacked the airplanes.
glockedandloaded
10-20-2011, 22:31
The 19 9/11 terrorist attackers used box cutters to gain access to the flight decks where they killed the airline pilots. Then terrorists who had trained at US flight schools used that training to fly the airplanes into buildings. The terrorists became suicide pilots while those terrorist not flying the planes held the passengers at bay. The terrorists were completely successful in three out of four planes they took. On the fourth plane, United Airlines flight 93, the passengers fought back against the terrorists. The passengers and crew all died, however, they denied the terrorists the ability to carry out their attack on their target (supposedly the US Capitol).
http://www.nps.gov/flni/historyculture/index.htm
To answer your question, box cutters were not prohibited items on 9/11/2001. The FAA and Dept of Transportation regulated airline security and provided rules for how the private contract security companies around the country were to conduct business. These private contract security companies were paid by the airlines through the airports where they operated. All of the 9/11 terrorists who attended US flight schools were in compliance with US laws and regulations in place before 9/11/2001. In fact, everyone of them was in the US legally with a proper Visa issued by the US State Department.
On 9/11/2001, Huntleigh (http://www.huntleighusa.com/) was the private contract security company at DIA.
No system is fool proof, but only a fool takes no precautions. I suggest that either the government, airlines, or individual Americans should be given the mission of protecting the aviation industry. Whoever has that mission should be given the authority to make rules and regulations which will allow them to succeed in that mission. Regardless of who has the mission, if the Constitution or other laws are violated than We the People have redress to our legislators and courts to curb that authority and bring justice to the process.
TSA has been and will continue to be sued in courts around the country. Sometimes TSA wins and sometimes they lose. This is how it should be.
People everywhere have a right and obligation to criticize and complain about TSA and any other government agency. Sometimes the people are right and sometimes they are wrong.
I stand by the questions, how do you stop terrorists and who do you trust with that mission?
a law has been introduced to make it a federal crime to criticize the TSA
Sharpienads
10-20-2011, 22:52
IMO, the first step would be to get rid of the TSA and put security back into the hands of private companies. Private companies are responsible to their customers, unlike the TSA. The free market can take care of this problem. One security company/airline doesn't make you feel safe or has a spotty safety record? Fly with a different airline. One company's security screenings are too obtrusive? Fly with a different airline.
Of course there are LIMFACs to this, but it's far better than the TSA.
I'm obviously not an expert in airport/airline security. But I'm sure there's people who are. Government is almost never the right answer, and when there is no constitutional authority, it is never the right answer.
Pay for TSA agents shouldn't have anything to do with it. If you have a job to do, you do it to the best of your ability. Of course that's hardly ever the case with government employees. Armed crews sounds like a great idea to me. You're already putting your life in their hands, does it really matter if they're armed? Air marshall types sound like a good idea too. I'll volunteer pro bono.
Recently a buddy of mine was looking through his wallet for something and realized he had several razor blades in it (he uses them daily for his job in the material department). I told him he was lucky that he didn't go through security at the airport with that stuff. Unfortunately he had flown at least 8 times with those razor blades without even realizing.
So much for security.
IMO, the first step would be to get rid of the TSA and put security back into the hands of private companies.
...
Pay for TSA agents shouldn't have anything to do with it. If you have a job to do, you do it to the best of your ability. Of course that's hardly ever the case with government employees. Armed crews sounds like a great idea to me. You're already putting your life in their hands, does it really matter if they're armed? Air marshall types sound like a good idea too. I'll volunteer pro bono.
So how would that look or work? Are there still checkpoints? Does each airline conduct screening at the gate? Under the pre-TSA system, the airlines paid the airport, who contracted a private security company that operated under rules and oversight provided by the FAA and Dept of Transportation. To use DIA as an example, United, as the largest carrier at DIA would pay the largest share of the contract cost. Southwest and Frontier would pay the next largest percentage of the contract cost. All passengers under this system would still be screened the same regardless of which airline they were flying. I guess I'm not sure I understand what type of security you are proposing.
As far as government employees hardly ever doing their job to the best of their ability, that would be a perception I would dispute. While it is true that some government employees are lazy and shiftless, I also know some of the most dedicated and hard working employees you will ever find who are employed in public service. As an example, every member of the US military is a government employee. Some are mediocre, some are substandard, but most are extremely hard working and do the best they can for pretty meager compensation.
No workforce, public or private is without it's slackers.
No one has mentioned the use of dogs in airports. I am a big proponent of dogs for the detection of explosive material. Mind you, I don't believe Shepherds and Malinois are the best breed for this particular job, but I personally would love to see teams of beagles or terriers working the concourses and terminals of every airport.
I would also advocate more extensive screening of checked luggage and cargo in combination with a much stricter limitation on carry-on luggage. If everyone was limited to one bag, the size of a woman's small purse as a carry-on, then the amount of time screening passengers would be significantly reduced. Another incentive I would support is a line at checkpoints for passengers who have no carry-on items at all. That would be the fastest lane going since the screeners would not have anything other than the passenger to be concerned about.
As for the naked scanners, those images have been dumbed down to such an extent that the screens are now right there, out in the open at the machine. If you get a chance, you can actually look at it when you get to the other side. The image is a generic silhouette of a person without any detail at all. The only thing the scanner provides is an indication on the silhouette of the location of any anomaly detected during the scan. Anyone who continues to persist in the notion that the scanners display naked images are either ignorant or demagoguing the issue for their own agenda. Look for yourself the next time you go through one of the machines. There are no naked images.
As for the radiation exposure. Third party, university laboratories have certified multiple times that all of the machines now in use at checkpoints around the country expose passengers to less radiation than they will receive while flying for one hour at 35,000 feet. That isn't TSA making that claim, those are the manufacturers and university laboratories. Besides, if someone is that concerned about walking through a backscatter x-ray once a day, five days a week, they seriously should consider putting that cell phone down. The cell phone next to your brain will do more damage than the backscatter or millimeter wave machines.
Again, I don't care whether it is the government providing security, private industry providing security, or private citizens providing their own security. I do know that airplanes are targets for terrorists. I do know that our economy and lifestyle are very dependent on aviation and transportation. We would be foolish if we didn't take some precautions to protect ourselves. No matter what is done to secure the transportation industry, there will be people who will not be happy or satisfied. I also agree with some previous posts that life has risks and to live as free men means that we are willing to accept some of those risks.
Let me get on an airplane the same way I get on a city bus and I will take responsibility for my personal safety on the airplane the same way as I do on the city bus. Today as I write this, our society and our government doesn't agree with me. Some of the previous posts here do not agree with the idea of letting private citizens take personal responsibility for their own safety on airplanes, and by that I mean concealed carry of whatever weapon(s) would be appropriate.
We all have opinions and I'm glad we have a forum like this to discuss those opinions. [Beer]
Recently a buddy of mine was looking through his wallet for something and realized he had several razor blades in it (he uses them daily for his job in the material department). I told him he was lucky that he didn't go through security at the airport with that stuff. Unfortunately he had flown at least 8 times with those razor blades without even realizing.
So much for security.
A weapon in the hands of someone with no intent to harm anyone is not a threat. It doesn't sound like your buddy was bringing a weapon onto an airplane so much as he forgot he had some tools from work in his wallet.
Security isn't perfect. Are you surprised?
I really hope our government isn't spending our tax dollars trying to prevent random citizens from bringing items which could be used as weapons onto airplanes. I know it often seems like that is exactly what TSA is doing.
If you were in charge of security at the airport, where would you focus your resources? What do you believe are the biggest threats and how would you defend against those threats?
If you were in charge of security at the airport, where would you focus your resources? What do you believe are the biggest threats and how would you defend against those threats?
I'm not a psychologist, a community organizer, nor an anthropologist, so I have no idea how to get tribes in Africa to stop raping virgins to try and cure themselves of HIV. I do know that it is wrong though.
Same thing with the TSA. Security isn't something I know a lot about, but I know what they are doing is WRONG, and isn't even one step closer to safer commercial air travel.
Let me get on an airplane the same way I get on a city bus and I will take responsibility for my personal safety on the airplane the same way as I do on the city bus. Today as I write this, our society and our government doesn't agree with me. Some of the previous posts here do not agree with the idea of letting private citizens take personal responsibility for their own safety on airplanes, and by that I mean concealed carry of whatever weapon(s) would be appropriate.
I agree with this. Except you can take $300 worth of groceries onto a city bus.
I'm not a psychologist, a community organizer, nor an anthropologist, so I have no idea how to get tribes in Africa to stop raping virgins to try and cure themselves of HIV. I do know that it is wrong though.
Same thing with the TSA. Security isn't something I know a lot about, but I know what they are doing is WRONG, and isn't even one step closer to safer commercial air travel.
Everything TSA does is wrong or are there specific things that you could list? Would those things be just as wrong if they were done by a private security company?
Did you know that TSA trains and arms pilots who volunteer to be deputized?
http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/ffdo.shtm
Is that wrong? Does that get us one step closer to safer commercial air travel?
The creation of TSA is the main thing that is wrong. Also, commercial air travel is not a reasonable reason to search a person.
A weapon in the hands of someone with no intent to harm anyone is not a threat. It doesn't sound like your buddy was bringing a weapon onto an airplane so much as he forgot he had some tools from work in his wallet.
yes.
there is nothing that is "a weapon"
a chair is a chair, a razor is a razor, a rifle is a rifle.
now of you pick up a chair and clobber someone over the head with it, it becomes a weapon.
the title of "weapon" is determined by how an object is used, not by what it is.
people have been trained to fear and distrust certain objects, like firearms, because of what they can do.
yet the same brainwashed liberal that will freak out at the sight of a firearm will get in a car without hesitation?
why is that? think about it. you're strapped in a powered metal box on wheels that is going to catapult you at high speed.
they don't bat an eye because of perception, even though statistically traveling by car is far more dangerous than being in proximity to a firearm.
it's this gradual control of perception that will destroy our country.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/elhuero/4ede4999-967f-4d37-aff9-42126169535e_thumb.jpg
mcantar18c
10-21-2011, 03:15
If you were in charge of security at the airport, where would you focus your resources? What do you believe are the biggest threats and how would you defend against those threats?
One word: Israel.
Cstone, thanks for presenting all this info and good questions.
Mick-Boy
10-21-2011, 04:36
The problem with the Israeli model is numbers. They have 3 international airports. We have 29 large hubs, 36 medium hubs, and 74 small hubs. They dealt with 12.1 million passengers in 2010. We dealt with 713.5 million (source (http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/media/historical_passenger_totals.pdf)). While not impossible, the numbers alone make their model very difficult to follow.
It takes a long time to train someone to read body language well. Some people just can't figure it out. Once you factor in cultural differences it becomes even more challenging. I'd love to see some of it implemented but I have a hard time seeing most of the TSA mouth breathers I've dealt with figuring it out (no offense cstone).
mcantar18c
10-21-2011, 04:42
The problem with the Israeli model is numbers. They have 3 international airports. We have 29 large hubs, 36 medium hubs, and 74 small hubs. They dealt with 12.1 million passengers in 2010. We dealt with 713.5 million (source (http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/media/historical_passenger_totals.pdf)). While not impossible, the numbers alone make their model very difficult to follow.
It takes a long time to train someone to read body language well. Some people just can't figure it out. Once you factor in cultural differences it becomes even more challenging. I'd love to see some of it implemented but I have a hard time seeing most of the TSA mouth breathers I've dealt with figuring it out (no offense cstone).
We can't just copy their playbook, but I think that if we were to look to them as an example to build from (with some changes to make things more feasible for the larger volumes) while replacing the crap TSA workers with skilled, intelligent people that get paid what they're worth, it would be one hell of an improvement.
Of course this will never actually happen, but it'd be a big step in the right direction.
funkfool
10-21-2011, 16:11
Hope this isn't a duplicate post... I hadn't had a chance to read everyone's posts but I came across this:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/9455-tsa-stages-highway-searches-to-show-its-tennessee-valley-authority
That VIPR — pronounced, appropriately, “viper” — is not merely, or even primarily, about combating terrorism but about establishing government control is made clear by a statement from Godwin. Noting that western Tennessee is a heavily traveled area, Godwin said, “Everything from Wal-Mart merchandise to illegal drugs and illegal immigrants are transported through this area. Current interdiction units are doing a good job, but further coordinated inspections will only strengthen their efforts. If we prepare for the worst, then we are ready for almost anything.”Illegal immigrants... uh, yeah. right. - like the .gov is going to prosecute that.
Larry Godwin, quoted in the above linked article is an employee of the state of Tennessee. The inspections they were focusing on took place at a roadside weight station where commercial trucks have been pulling off and "showing us your papers" for years.
As for comparing the TSA to the East German Stasi, that would be an insult to the ruthlessness and effectiveness of the Stasi.
As far as I am aware, no state in the Union has a "Shall Issue" law for driver's licenses. Regardless of what our different opinions are, no one in the USA has a Constitutional right to drive a vehicle on a public road. When you drive a vehicle on a public road you have already implied your approval and consent to abide by traffic laws including obeying lawful direction by law enforcement officers. Based on what most of us see everyday while driving on Colorado's roads, I'm not looking for less law enforcement and I sure would like to see more people obeying the existing traffic laws.
I personally think VIPR missions using TSA resources are pointless and a poor utilization of manpower.
boulder888
10-21-2011, 21:07
I seriously can't stand the "security theater" going on in airports these days. I'm only flying when it's required by work.
I seriously can't stand the "security theater" going on in airports these days. I'm only flying when it's required by work.
What would you do differently if you were responsible for aviation security?
As far as I am aware, no state in the Union has a "Shall Issue" law for driver's licenses. Regardless of what our different opinions are, no one in the USA has a Constitutional right to drive a vehicle on a public road. When you drive a vehicle on a public road you have already implied your approval and consent to abide by traffic laws including obeying lawful direction by law enforcement officers. Based on what most of us see everyday while driving on Colorado's roads, I'm not looking for less law enforcement and I sure would like to see more people obeying the existing traffic laws.
What part of random searches is lawful exactly? It doesn't matter if you are on a public road or not, the way to grant access to the use of public roads is by registering and insuring your vehicle, and by properly displaying your plates. You don't forfeit ANY rights by following registration rules.
OneGuy67
10-22-2011, 10:49
Cstone, I applaud you for your well worded and thought out comments and arguments. My apologies for getting the ATF in the wrong department; I knew the right answer, but wrote down the wrong one for some reason. I'm getting old, I guess.
I don't have the answers to your questions. I don't even have any good ideas. I just believe TSA was the wrong way in which to solve the issue and now that they are alive and existing, the monster will want to expand, and I do not want that (I say this as a gov't employee and LEO).
I do not believe that the next terrorist threat will be a repeat of 9/11 with aircraft. It will be something else. My thoughts fall to commerce and if the terrorists effectively put fear into American lives by taking away the security of commerce, then we will again experience shockwaves throughout our economy.
I've always thought that 5-10 suicide bombers, similar to what is experienced in Iraq or Afghanistan, in busy markets, would suffice to make that occur. Our markets? Malls. What would be the effect if there were 10 bombers placed in 10 different malls (say the food courts on a Saturday). What would be the effect? Would we be afraid to congregate in large numbers? Would we put metal detectors and security at the doors? Would people be afraid to shop? What devastation would that do to our economy?
I've always thought that 5-10 suicide bombers, similar to what is experienced in Iraq or Afghanistan, in busy markets, would suffice to make that occur. Our markets? Malls. What would be the effect if there were 10 bombers placed in 10 different malls (say the food courts on a Saturday). What would be the effect? Would we be afraid to congregate in large numbers? Would we put metal detectors and security at the doors? Would people be afraid to shop? What devastation would that do to our economy?
Agreed, the soft targets are the best targets. I also don't believe the next target will be the aircraft itself, but is more likely the airport. Rather than target a mall, initiate a bomb in the que at the checkpoint, or several different checkpoints around the country.
I know the ultimate answer is that life isn't safe and no one can make it safe. The government has set up a mindset among a significant portion of the population that it is in the business of providing security. Just like many other government services, many people become dependent and begin to demand more of those services.
Like many of you, I also believe that the government cannot defend all things. What things should be defended and who should be responsible for providing that security?
As for random searches along the highway Irving, the weight station searches are normally conducted by State Police and I will let some of the professional drivers here on the board provide some first hand feedback on the scope and limitations on the types of searches that can and are conducted routinely during these stops. I will say that the types of random searched mentioned in that news article are not focused on private, non-commercial vehicles. Other than highway border inspection stations (which can be 100 miles from the actual border) I am unaware of any searches being conducted of private, non-commercial vehicles. Border and administrative searches are handled differently than other law enforcement searches. This can be some pretty complicated areas of the law and even different courts see different types of searches differently. There are many types of searches that do not require a court ordered warrant. Most cops tread pretty lightly in searching anything unless they have training on the legality of different types of searches. Conducting illegal searches can be a quick way to become poor, unemployed, and a guest at the graybar hotel.
I've thought of some pretty scary things that would be retarded easy to do, and cause some real terror, but am afraid to talk about them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.