Originally Posted by
TSORon
No security system is 100% perfect. That’s a fact. The government is required to provide for the common good and protect its citizens, its in the constitution. On 9/11/2001 the USA was attacked by … well we all know that story. The government’s response to the threat was to federalize the screening workforce and the system that failed so miserably.
First off, I agree that no security system is 100% perfect. That said, if a major component of that system--that being the liquid testing strips--can be scientifically proven to not do what it's intended to do, doesn't it go from a component of a security system to absolute theatrics? And don't you think the boogeyman has people in his employ who are well aware of that, and well aware of how easy it would be to get dangerous liquids aboard? And given that information, isn't it kind of telling that no one's blown up a plane with their bottle of breast milk or their insulin supply?
Since 2002 there has not been a successful attack on an airline from a US airport--<snip>--People who will take an active part in notifying the authorities of suspicious activities by one of their fellow passengers, people who keep their eyes open and their ears sharp.
Here's what happened on 9/11: four planes were hijacked. Three made it to their intended targets, as passengers were likely conditioned to expect that, in a hijacking, the safest thing to do is not resist and wait for the hijackers to release you once their demands are met. The passengers on the fourth plane, however, got a heads-up thanks to cell phones, knew what was going on, overpowered the hijackers and foiled the plot. United 93 was proof to terrorists that such an attempt would never succeed again, as passengers would not allow it.
Now, as to the notion that the TSA has stopped attack attempts, I offer this analogy. A gang put out hits on four police officers in 2001. Three hits were successful, but the fourth failed because the officer knew what was happening and called for backup to handle the threat. Every day since, that officer has worn riot gear to work, and during that time, he has never been shot. Is that because he's wearing the riot gear, or is it because gangs know that he's expecting it and knows how to handle it going forward, so a similar attack would end in failure?
It will be a generation or more--if ever--before there's another successful attack on an American airliner, and the TSA has absolutely zero to do with that.
I also want to address the notion of passengers turning each other in by saying that the whole "See Something, Say Something" program is revolting. If you see a guy sitting at McDonald's trying to light his underpants on fire, yeah, say something. But this idiotic, offensive program encourages people to "turn in" anyone who looks suspicious, i.e., the guy wearing a hoodie and standing in a vacant gate. You know, the guy who's just early for his flight and wanted a quiet place to chill beforehand. Or the woman who's so nervous about flying that she's sitting at the gate shaking. Clearly, if you're that nervous, you're a terrorist, right? If I ever see someone playing with a wristwatch connected to a small bag, I'll call 9-1-1 and let a police officer know. Rest assured that I will never, never report anything to a TSA screener.
In other words its many things. Many people. Much effort. And yes, expanded funding for the required changes. The folks here who complain the loudest are also the type that screamed the loudest for the changes needed, likely the very same people in fact. They will never admit it, but it’s true none the less.
Expanded funding for expensive equipment that will sit unused in a warehouse? Expanded funding so that the Thousands Standing Around become the Tens of thousands Standing Around? Expanded funding for MMW+ATD scanners that are notorious for false positives to the point that, at one or two unnamed airports I've been to, the clones don't even bother to pat you down if there's only one yellow box in a known-falsing area--information that the boogeyman would love to have?
Yet even with all of that, there is still no perfect system. None. There are holes. There are personnel failures, criminal activity, and thoughtlessness. Just because the folks here cannot (or refuse to) understand purposes for the procedures we have, does not mean that they are wrong or meaningless. It just means that they are choosing ignorance over knowledge.
No, it means that we choose to question rather than accept, and the answers to the questions don't paint a pretty picture for the TSA. You want to talk about holes? Here's a huge one for you. The weapons used to hijack planes on 9/11 were box cutters--devices that can easily be concealed from carry-on X-rays, and have now been shown to be easy to hide from the AIT scanners that are now used as primary at (wild guess) 80% of passenger airports in the country.
Think about that. Billions of dollars later, and the TSA, as it exists today, would be incapable of preventing a 9/11-style attack, because its prized detection equipment cannot detect thin strips of metal placed out, alongside the body in a baggy shirt. That's why I have a problem with the TSA. The rallying cry was "9/11! 9/11!". In exchange for the spending of billions upon billions of dollars--money that could have gone to healthcare, education, infrastructure or, God forbid, paying down our debt--and the sacrificing of virtually all personal liberties and dignities in order to get onto a flying Greyhound, we have an organization that would have failed to detect the hijackers, and failed to stop the terrorist attack it was formed in response to.