birdstrike

DHS/TSA has subsumed, and sometimes subverted, honest US assets like the USCG. Targeting TSA as a whole unfairly includes USCG and even the FAM program who's mission has been badly twisted to the "Homeland Security" madness.

How do we split the truly rogue smurf-patrol from the rest of the government machine while addressing Congress?

FriendlySkies

How about smurfs and then the respectable agencies withing DHS/TSA...

clifc

Don't mention the FAMs, CG, Sec.Svc., etc.

You wouldn't want to give them any press for helping TSA would you?

VH-RMD

let them fight their own distancing battle.

They are all part of one bad club, if they do not want to be associated with their clerk colleagues, let them argue for dis-assimilation.

Divide and conquer, never miss an opportunity.

LuvAirFrance

USCG is in DHS but not in TSA. They are affiliates.

sbagdon

And can't the DoD take command of the USCG, after declaration of war?

Wait, we're at war, aren't we? Still trying to figure out if it was ever declared. Who declares war? Congress?

Michilander

Yes

FlyingUnderTheRadar

Yeah, but Congress keeps abdicating their responsibility of declaring war to the president. Been doing that for over 60 years now :-(.

kbug43

My brother is active duty Coast Guard and has been told on several occasions by the document checking TSO that his military ID is not sufficient identification for domestic air travel. He was told once by the screener that the Coast Guard isn't part of the military, so he shouldn't have an ID. Do these people get NO training on the rest of DHS?

On his last trip through security up here he used his military ID and learned that the TSO and his son were both USCG veterans. They chatted for a bit and he cleared security with no problems (and no NoS). I have found that the screeners at BDL are fairly pleasant and reasonable people overall. Most of his issues with screeners not accepting military ID were at large airports in the south (Texas, Florida, Georgia, etc.).

FliesWay2Much

I'm not so sure that we necessarily taint the rest of DHS by our animosity towards the TSA. The DHS leadership and two Administrations tried to destroy the USCG, but most of the troops understand that their primary mission is search & rescue first and enforcement of boating and watercraft safety second. DHS turned this around and started to adversely influence their budget . The USCG had to figure out how to use the word "terrorism" in their budget submittals in order to make sure they had enough money to do the job. ADM Thad Allen is a class act -- witness his leadership during Deepwater Horizon.

There are also very good parts of FEMA as well -- some of which the public doesn't know about. The DHS-led destruction of FEMA culminated in "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie," but, they have recovered significantly since then. There was an initiative in Congress to actually pull them back out of DHS in 2006. The current Administrator, Craig Fugate, is world-class.

And, the Secret Service, Uniformed and plain-clothes, does a pretty good job, too.

I believe that most of us who abhor the TSA and everything it stands for are very careful to minimize collateral damage to the useful and competent parts of DHS.

BearX220

Congress hasn't actually declared war since Pearl Harbor. Korea was a "police action" and war was never declared in Vietnam. The War Powers Act is a political football.

As for the thread topic: I don't see how you differentiate between rogue Smurfs engaging in freelance harassment and the agency that tolerates, rationalizes, or tacitly supports their behavior.

LuvAirFrance

Well, I think its an undeclared war. Plus, though they CAN make the DoD in charge of the USCG, I don't think the founding law says it ever must happen. Probably a discretionary power of the president.

ghostrider10

BDL also houses CT ANG so they are probably used to seeing all sorts of people belonging to the Uniformed Services (there are 7: count'em: Army, Navy, AirForce, Marines, CG, NOAA, and PHS) using their facilities. The TSO is f'ing clueless if he's not accepting one of their official IDs as photo ID. They are all USPIC CACs.

On a side note, prior to 2008, you could have showed them a CT CCW ID (as issued by the DPS) and they took it (at least at BDL, I always made it a point to use that instead of DL just to raise some eyebrows, never got secondaried that way either ). Unfortunately the REAL ID requirements got in the way and TSA will no longer except those as state issued IDs.

as of 2006 either congress can pass a bill (or put in a bill amendment, like a defense appropriations bill or iraq war emergency funding, etc.) or the president can issue an EO placing USCG under the command authority of DOD during a war.

To be perfectly fair TSA really screwed FAM up too; the whole Robert Maclean debacle is/was just the tip of the iceberg.

Good Guy

The retired Secret Service good 'ol boys network screwed up the FAMS. Although there have been some positive changes in the last few years.

MarkXS

I know that LuvAirFrance's post intends to correct you, but let's be even more clear. In your thread title, you are incorrectly using the term "TSA" where you mean "DHS".

TSA is just one of several agencies in the Department of Homeland Security. Yes, they're all under Big Sis Nappy, but the other agencies are not any part of TSA nor is TSA any part of them. Those other agencies, as others point out, include the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, FEMA, and a bunch more.

We can all argue things like "TSA should be abolished", "DHS should be abolished", the term "Homeland should be abolished", and "Heck of a job, FEMA".

But unless you mean your topic starter "I think we now need to differentiate between smurfs and the rest of TSA" as "we need to differentiate between the blue-shirted TSOs and the management and other non-screener employees of the Transportation Security Administration", the topic you wrote does not at all represent the topic you are discussing.

I've got no problem with the USCG, the Secret Service, and nowadays, with FEMA. They're not "the rest of TSA", they have nothing to do with TSA except that they happen to be in the same Cabinet-level department. Effective arguments against TSA require accurate terminology.