Time to get rid of the TSA

[uscitizen]

Passenger safety on private airlines should be in the hands of and paid for by the private businesses and they should be held responsible for any acclaim or aw shits.

Beef up the private security--I have no problem with that. But what we're funding is cosmetic and impotent.

and Lazy and Overpaid and i could go on and on!

Yep bring back the 60 yr old security guards of old.

 

[voltron]

once going through airport security with my grandfather I to wondered why I a 10 year old boy and a 75 year old man were being selected for extra screening when many middle age men would walk right by. The "random" search process might be used to comfort other passengers around but I dont belive me and my grandfather were that threatning.

 

[jokedoctor]

The 9/11 Report said that the main reason 19 terrorists were able to board flights is because the agencies; FBI, CIA, INS weren't sharing information. Guess what? They're still not. Problem not solved.

Interesting to know that the former head of the TSA; the Transportation Safety Administration was Kip Hawley (appointed by Bush) had no background in safety. His background was in hospitality. Basically they were saying, You're not going to be safer, but we'll leave the light on for you.

 

[jillian]

They're not Sworn Officers either so every search they do is a violation of your 4th Amendment. They get 40 hours of classroom training and a badge.

no. it isn't.

but thanks.

There's an argument if there ever was one:

"no. it isn't....but thanks."

i'm sorry, mr 220 threads in about a month... i realize that you're so busy spewing rightwingnut trash that you haven't a clue about reality...

but you're not here for discussion. he's not here for discussion. you spend your time ranting and raving.

nothing i say is going to move you into reality or get you to post a decent comment.

so why would i waste my time on stupid?

i don't..i make fun of stupid/.... which is why i make fun of you.

now, you want reality? here, let's pretend you actually give a rat's patoot about reality... reality is they're constantly tested... they are constantly trained... and if they fail those tests, they get fired.

now i'll stop pretending you... or he... are interested in reality.

 

[jillian]

The 9/11 Report said that the main reason 19 terrorists were able to board flights is because the agencies; FBI, CIA, INS weren't sharing information. Guess what? They're still not. Problem not solved.

Interesting to know that the former head of the TSA; the Transportation Safety Administration was Kip Hawley (appointed by Bush) had no background in safety. His background was in hospitality. Basically they were saying, You're not going to be safer, but we'll leave the light on for you.

the 9/11 report wasn't very thorough, apparently. but we kind of new that when they allowed bush/cheney to be interviewed together without being sworn. additionally, they spent 7 million investigating 9/11 after spending 70 million investigating clinton. that speaks volumes.

there's also quite a bit of information coming out now which seems to suggest that the CIA wasn't the problem... the information was gathered; the information was conveyed... and nothing was done with it...

The Deafness Before the Storm
By KURT EICHENWALD

IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before

more at link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html

there's a book that just came out that deals which goes into greater detail on this subject. the agents are apparently not happy they were blamed

 

[candycorn]

Would getting rid of the TSA mean we would not have to go through the same security checkpoints and go through the same scrutiny? No......If you are going to fly, you will still need to be checked

So, what does getting rid of the TSA accomplish?

I was made aware of this on the Adam Carolla Podcast this morning:

Please give this a look:

This story appears in the
September 24, 2012 issue of
Forbes.

A vivid example of the stark
difference between Big
Government and free markets can
be seen in–of all places–the
Transportation Security
Administration.

San Francisco International Airport
(SFO) employs a private contractor
for screening passengers and
luggage. It’s one of only 16 airports (out of 450 in this country) allowed to do
this. Last year the House Transportation & Infrastructure committee
conducted a study of how screening at Los Angeles chief airport (LAX)
compared with SFO’s. The astonishing finding: SFO screeners processed 65%
more passengers per screener than did their counterparts at LAX. That’s not a
typo: 65%. SFO screeners receive the same wages and benefits as those hired
and managed by the TSA, and SFO uses virtually identical procedures and
equipment. The difference is that the private contractor in San Francisco has
no sense of entitlement or feeling of permanency. Competition works. There
is far less turnover of screeners at SFO, and the contractor saves money by
using part-timers (all fully trained, of course) to meet peak periods rather
than keeping full-timers waiting around for periodic surges.

Highly regarded transportation expert Robert Poole of Reason Foundation
recounted the findings of this startling study in congressional testimony this
summer. Poole pointed out that a principal problem is the TSA’s built-in conflict of
interest. It is supposed to establish security policies and ensure that those
policies are implemented. Yet the “TSA itself is the operator of the largest
component of airport security-passenger and baggage screening. [Its] selfregulation is inherently problematic.” Poole cited a USA Today investigation
that found that TSA screeners at Chicago O’Hare and LAX “missed three times
as many hidden bomb materials as did privately contracted screeners at San
Francisco.”

It’s no surprise that the Government Accountability Office found that TSA
studies comparing its performance with those of private contractors were
highly flawed. Another problem is that because the TSA itself is doing
screenings airports are not “having a unified approach to security.” Divided
responsibility almost guarantees security flaws and problems.

Poole’s recommendations:
– The TSA should get out of the business of directly operating screenings at
airports. No more conflict of interest.
– Airports should select contractors from those that are TSA-certified.
– Airports, not the TSA, should manage those contractors under TSA
oversight.

In fact, the TSA should set goals and performance metrics and let all airports–
with TSA approval–come up with procedures that meet particular needs.
In no other country does the oversight agency also directly manage airport
security. The U.S. is violating policy set by the International Civil Aviation
Organization, of which the U.S. is a member.

Steve Forbes is the co-author of Freedom Manifesto: Freedom
Manifesto: Why Free Markets Are Moral And Big Government
Isn’tforbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2012/09/05/…/print/ 3/3
This article is available online at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevefo...erest-would-come-as-nosurprise-to-adam-smith/

I don't agree with Poole that the TSA should still remain as an oversight agency and certify screening companies. But I do think the study is quite revealing in that we are not getting enough bang for our buck with this agency doing screenings directly.

 

[candycorn]

The 9/11 Report said that the main reason 19 terrorists were able to board flights is because the agencies; FBI, CIA, INS weren't sharing information. Guess what? They're still not. Problem not solved.

Interesting to know that the former head of the TSA; the Transportation Safety Administration was Kip Hawley (appointed by Bush) had no background in safety. His background was in hospitality. Basically they were saying, You're not going to be safer, but we'll leave the light on for you.

The idiots who talk about 9/11 conspiracies never seem to capitalize on this being the real crime--the Federal Government has not done squat to make us safer in terms of destroying the organizational "stove piping" that went on pre 9/11.

 

[candycorn]

On Nightline right now...they're doing an exposee on the TSA. About 400 TSA employees were popped for stealing from passengers. Brian Ross lost his IPAD to some guy who swore he didn't take it (they had video of him handling the IPAD). They activated an audible alarm on the missing IPAD and low and behold, the TSA employee--a guy named Ramirez--found it in his house. He said his wife took it--his wife who doesn't work for the TSA.

Same could happen no matter who screens baggage, I know. But still.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I thought small government was an absurd idea.

 

[williepete]

As a corporate pilot, I travel quite a bit. TSA is indeed a joke, or more accurately, theater. Adopting the Israeli method of multiple screening levels was looked into and rejected as too invasive for Americans to tolerate. As an aviation professional, I disagree. The TSA is too busy looking for weapons to concentrate on people. To their credit, they have trained a few human behavior specialist and they are being more widely deployed. A step in the right direction.

As of September 12, 2001, airline passengers will not tolerate a hijacking attempt. Period. Once the plane is loaded and pushes away from the gate, the passengers will police themselves. I've seen several examples of this personally and read about many more. Bomb and weapons screening should remain as is and they should increase the number of human behavior specialist in a layered screen. First at ticketing, then baggage check then going through security then at the gate. The CCTV monitors should also be trained in human behavior screening techniques. The number of thermal body temperature monitors, now in use should be increased to spot the nervous passengers for additional screening.

As for eliminating the TSA, I'd agree as it exists now. I think starting from a clean sheet of paper would be easier than reforming the monstrosity TSA has become. Having worked for the federal government myself, that's just too much to ask.

 

[Borillar]

The TSA is a total waste of money. We have all heard the anecdotes of the very young and the very old getting screened for bombs or whatever. What many have not heard is that almost zero air freight relative to the number of tons moved per year is screened. We also have not heard about the threats to the aircraft itself from within.

It's a total waste and it's time for it to go.

Amen! Scrap the DHS and "Patriot" Act too. Waste of money and intrusion upon our civil liberties.