Don't like the TSA? Just don't fly. Oh... wait...

[glockedandloaded]

this makes us all safer... dont you see?
I told every one i knew this was coming

[Irving]

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]

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]

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.

[cstone]

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?

[Irving]

So the 9/11 terrorists literally broke zero rules until they high jacked the airplanes.

[glockedandloaded]

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]

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.

[Outlaw1]

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.

[cstone]

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.