Hallelujah!!!

naunga

naunga

New Member
To paraphase the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr: Free at last! free at last! Thank God Almight, we are free at last...well we should be by the end of the year.

Here's the link Click Here

And the text...
[ QUOTE ]

Agency created in 9/11's wake designed to dissolve by year's end
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Leslie Miller
Associated Press
Washington

The anti-terrorism agency that Congress rushed into existence just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks to protect America's planes, trains and trucks is shrinking, and could all but fade away.

The Transportation Security Administration, which hired about 65,000 employees and has spent more than $10 billion over 2½ years, has been beset by complaints about its performance, leaving it vulnerable to congressional Republicans who want to reduce the size of government.

After the terrorist attacks, "people were panicked to put in place a massive bureaucracy," said House Aviation Subcommittee Chairman John Mica.

The Florida Republican says the time has come to rethink TSA and cut it back.

The federal air marshal program, which places armed, undercover officers on select planes, already has been transferred elsewhere within the Department of Homeland Security, for instance. Also, TSA has cut its work force of passenger and baggage screeners who make up the bulk of its employees from 60,000 to 45,000.

Mica and other Republicans, who were never entirely comfortable with creating a new bureaucracy, want to return all airport security screener jobs to the private sector, where they were before Sept. 11, 2001. If so, the federal screeners would get the first opportunity to apply for the private jobs.

Mica argues that private companies will do a better, more efficient job at the screening that currently is the TSA's primary function.

"They were given almost an impossible task, and they did complete the task Congress requested," Mica said of the TSA. "Now the question comes to sheer numbers and performance, and there's a lot to be desired."

Mica plans to meet with Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge soon to talk about reorganizing TSA.

The law creating the Homeland Security Department has a sunset provision for the transportation security office. It says the TSA has to be maintained as a distinct entity only until November 2004.

TSA Deputy Administrator Stephen McHale said he wasn't aware of any plans to change the agency's status as a separate entity. But, he acknowledged recently, "I'm not saying such a plan won't develop."

But many Democrats believe the federal agency is needed to protect travelers. They say Republicans set it up to fail by refusing to give it enough money.

"I helped to create TSA, which is now being disassembled," said Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio, ranking Democrat on the aviation subcommittee.

The TSA started from nothing and grew quickly as part of the Transportation Department. It was incorporated into the Homeland Security Department when that Cabinet-level agency was formed as a result of separate legislation early last year.

The law creating TSA gave airports the choice of returning to privately employed screeners to check passengers and bags as of Nov. 19.

An estimated 100 airports, out of 445 with TSA screeners, already have expressed interest in taking advantage of that option this fall.

Some think that would be better for fliers. Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, expects contractors to put "more focus on customer service and civility."


[/ QUOTE ]
 
Do you remember the jokes that passed for "security" people back on September 10, 2001? I may not like the TSA folks, but they are a hell of a lot better than the people who used to be there who considered a job at the Starbucks or McDonald's in the terminal a promotion.

If we go back to private security contractors, we need to make sure that there are very strict standards and that if someone fails them, they lose their contract the next day. No more of Argen[not]bright hiring criminals and keeping their contracts.

Of course, this all is based on the premise that terrorists want to pull another September 11. That was a one time deal and they know it. If they were dumb, we'd have bin Laden's head on a platter by now.
 
Well is this really a good idea? It could only send the message to terrorists that security is cutting back again. Also, if they are going to hire private airport screeners, might as well raise the requirements and train them properly.
 
Well here's my opinion on both comments.

Yes I do remember the previous screeners, but the problem is that only the worst of the worst were eliminated. If you recall most of the people who now work for the TSA previously worked for the private screening company. All the TSA did was give them some authority to harrass people.

As far as sending a message to the terrorists that we're "cutting back on security". Think about the rules that were enforced by the TSA and ask yourself if they really made things safer:

1. Can't get on the concourse without a ticket. Osama is worth millions, some terrorist training camps are funded by the countries that they operate in, "charities" in the U.S. also help fund terrorists. Do you really think Al Qaida is going to freak about spending $400 on a plane ticket? I mean they had no problem spending $100K+ to get the 9/11 hijackers flight training in big airplanes. This rule hasn't made anything safer.

2. Laptops must be out of their bag to be x-rayed. As I recall this was the policy at several airports before 9/11. Again the TSA didn't make things safer, just more standard.

3. Speaking of standard...TSA airports are supposed to be using a high sensativity setting on their metal dectors, but I can tell you that the detectors in Cleveland and Atlanta seem to have lost a step since 9/11.

4. The TSA has the authority to strip search anyone they deem a threat. Of course this rule doesn't help when you hire perverts who like to see grandma and grandpa in their b-day suits.

5. The dumbest rule of all: Take your shoes off before going through. Of course now they allow you to wear your shoes until they trip the detector. Last time I checked C4 and the like didn't set off metal detectors.

6. No sharp objects on the plane. This actually is an intelligent rule, until you realize that while they're giving some guy a hasle about nail clippers, they're letting grandma on with 6" metal knitting needles.

And the list goes on.

No security is perfect, but there are things that can be done to improve security. Most of them don't require an organization like the TSA.

Think back to when they used to ask you if anyone else packed your luggage. This was the dumbest rule in the world, because if a terrorist was asked that he's not going to say, "No I put the bomb in it myself."

It all goes back to the fact that the 9/11 hijackers bought tickets, went through security, and followed all the rules. They even used their own names, and had the airlines had access to the terrorist watchlists they would've been caught. Plain and simple: 9/11 was an intelligence sharing breakdown. The FBI didn't have what the CIA had, who didn't have what NSA had, who didn't have what INS had, and nobody knew it, and in the end it was the people in the Towers who paid the price. I personally think that those persons responsible for that breakdown need to be on the street looking for work.

Finally, in my opinon I think that if we continue to run for cover everytime some guy in a cave makes a threat against us then the terrorists have gotten what they wanted. Their goal is to invoke terror in us with just the sound of their names, and they're doing it. Another 9/11 may happen, it may never happen, but this much is true. As long as were living our lives like it's going to happen in the next 5 minutes we've let them win.

I say down with the TSA!!!
grin.gif


Naunga
 
I would LOVE to have the TSA gone in favor of the private sector. Airports were so much more fun pre-TSA...giving us our freedom back would be a huge step in the right direction.
 
You ain't gonna see the airports going back to the way they were pre-September 11, TSA or not.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, this all is based on the premise that terrorists want to pull another September 11. That was a one time deal and they know it. If they were dumb, we'd have bin Laden's head on a platter by now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Is there any question that al Queda wouldn't want to pull another 9/11, on a much bigger scale if possible? Nuclear? Biological? You name it?

BTW they aren't dumb. They are insane and evil, a bad combination.

It's up to us to not put our head in the sand and allow our industry to be the venue for the next attack. Having said that: yes there are better ways than the TSA. Federalizing airport security was a mistake. Not streamlining the arming of the cockpit was a mistake. The best solutions are often the most efficient. Arm more pilots and you cover a lot more flights than a relatively small number of air marshall's.

Be "more secure and less stupid about it" should be the motto.
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
You ain't gonna see the airports going back to the way they were pre-September 11, TSA or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely right Tony.

Nothing is going to change. It's going to be back to rent-a-cops screening people and baggage. People who won't be thouroughly trained, people with criminal backgrounds and people who think they are actually worth somthing cause they make 10 bucks an hour.

The TSA cleaned up the system, weeded out all of the criminals that came from privatized security and trains employees every week. With privatization, the only training you will get is on the job.

Same system, less qualified people running it.
 
I disagree. The TSA is mostly made up of those same people.

There are countless incidents of TSAers "slipping through" background checks.

Argenbright reports that 95% of their airport personnel went to the TSA.

It will be the same people, different uniforms. Maybe not as many, and maybe not as many of them outside smoking on their 15 minutes per hour breaks.
 
2. Laptops must be out of their bag to be x-rayed. As I recall this was the policy at several airports before 9/11. Again the TSA didn't make things safer, just more standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

The TSA starting doing what the privatized sector was supposed to be doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

3. Speaking of standard...TSA airports are supposed to be using a high sensativity setting on their metal dectors, but I can tell you that the detectors in Cleveland and Atlanta seem to have lost a step since 9/11.

They are more sensative.

[/ QUOTE ]

4. The TSA has the authority to strip search anyone they deem a threat. Of course this rule doesn't help when you hire perverts who like to see grandma and grandpa in their b-day suits.

It takes alot more than one person to authorize a strip search. Jo Schmo screener can only utilize his chain of command before s/he thinks about strip search.

[/ QUOTE ]

5. The dumbest rule of all: Take your shoes off before going through. Of course now they allow you to wear your shoes until they trip the detector. Last time I checked C4 and the like didn't set off metal detectors.

Know what a detenator/initiator is? You need one to make c-4 do its duty. Can't light c-4 with a lighter, remember?

[/ QUOTE ]



No security is perfect.

There is such thing as "real security" . Majority of the people wouldn't handle it very well.

[/ QUOTE ]


Finally, in my opinon I think that if we continue to run for cover everytime some guy in a cave makes a threat against us then the terrorists have gotten what they wanted.

Who's running for cover? The guy in the cave cause he knows he'll get manhandled if he comes out.

[/ QUOTE ]


Their goal is to invoke terror in us with just the sound of their names, and they're doing it.

I haven't seen much effect recently.

[/ QUOTE ]





[/ QUOTE ]
 
This is an issue we are dealing with at our airport, to keep TSA or not come November. The thing is that the rules say that you dont have to have the TSA but the private company must have equal pay and training as the TSA screeners. Also, there are 5 airports that dont use TSA screeners now. The tests that were done of these places said that they were equal to the TSA screeners and in one case(in the midwest somewhere), they stopped more "dangerous" items then the TSA. I have a printed info page about this at work, I will look online and post the link if I find it.
 
I'm kind of torn. Some airports pre-9/11 had fantastic screeners, and other airports it was abundantly obvious that they had hired the cheapest lowest common denominator type screener.

At least with the TSA, there was more or less a certain level of performance. Knowing the airline industry, "Company A" can provide the absolute finest, most reliable security, but if "Company B", perhaps with horrible performance and inconsistent screening, is $0.15/hr cheaper, "Company B" is going to get the contract every time.

Trust me.
 
Basically, what TSA was SUPPOSED to be was a nationwide standard as far as screening goes. It wasn't. And I have to agree with JT, most of the TSA people here at MCO are the same people that were there when it was privitized. Anyone seen Soul Plane and how those two girls are screening? Yeah, I saw two TSA people about that attentive the other day. Just b/c it's gubmunt don't mean it werks. Here's what *I* think the DHS should do. Go back to private contractors, and use the budget they had for TSA to pay roving security inspectors. Maybe that will help with the standardization issue. If the private company isn't performing up to snuff, replace them/fine them/whatever. This is something we SHOULD have been doing all along. As far as letting people to the gates w/o tickets, I personally have no problem with it. It puts some of the fun back into the airport experience. However, maybe limit it at peak travel times (or nix it altogether during peak times).

Oh, and someone mentioned that private screeners would only be recieving on-the-job training. To my knowledge, this is how the TSA does it anyway. At least when some 90 year old lady is staring at my backpack through the security screen like it's a brand new Matlock made-for-TV movie, I like to think she's still in training......
 
Speaking of MCO, back in 1999 I started to realize how much of a joke security was.

I was exiting the train after a rotation and the lines were HUGE thru security. So this guy yells "(blank) this!" and runs thru wrong direction thru the exit to get to the train. Alarms start blaring and the guy who was assigned to monitor the exit did nothing.

I said, "Hey! that guy just breached security and set the alarm off!"

His response? "What do you want me to do, chase him?"

At that point, I tried to find a security supervisor but no one seemed to give a crap and acted as if I was over-reacting.

I even offered to go back thru to find the guy since I was an eye witness but they told me they wanted me to stand in the back of the line and wait to be rescreened because I'd inconvenience hte other passengers that had been waiting patiently.

Ahh yes. I remember Orlando well.
 
I remember at SNA (pre 9/11) a male, non fluent english speaking security guard, pointed at my trousers and asked if he could see my package....

Right as I was getting ready to lose my mind, I realized he was talking about the gum I had in my pocket.
spin2.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Al Qaeda isn't going to try the airplane trick again. The airplane will not be allowed to crash into a building. The hijackers aren't getting access to the cockpit. The passenger will fight back because they know if they sit and watch, they are dead. The pilots may well be armed and if they are, they will kill the hijackers. And even if they hijackers get control of the plane after all that, the plane will be shot down.

Far better to detonate a truck bomb in a major American city than to try the airplane trick again.

And if they get a nuke or biological weapon, well, then, why bother to hijack a plane? Just put that nuke in a car and park it, and boom. One hell of a mess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top