Mathematician Criticizes "Security" Program
Feb 3, 2003, 9:09 pm
#46
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northeast MA, USA.
Programs: HHonors Diamond, DL Silver, TSA Harassee
Posts: 3,657
Daschle would NOT let the Transportation Security Act of 2001 go through w/o federalizing the screeners. He was UNWILLING to compromise.
Bush could not Veto such an important piece of legislation over one stumbling block.
Once again, the democrats idea of bipartisianship is that they get their way.
Bush could not Veto such an important piece of legislation over one stumbling block.
Once again, the democrats idea of bipartisianship is that they get their way.
Feb 3, 2003, 11:10 pm
#47
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Francisco
Programs: American Airlines Platinum Pro
Posts: 3,412
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CameraGuy:
Daschle would NOT let the Transportation Security Act of 2001 go through w/o federalizing the screeners. He was UNWILLING to compromise.
Bush could not Veto such an important piece of legislation over one stumbling block.
Once again, the democrats idea of bipartisianship is that they get their way.</font>
Daschle would NOT let the Transportation Security Act of 2001 go through w/o federalizing the screeners. He was UNWILLING to compromise.
Bush could not Veto such an important piece of legislation over one stumbling block.
Once again, the democrats idea of bipartisianship is that they get their way.</font>
Feb 4, 2003, 6:00 am
#48
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northeast MA, USA.
Programs: HHonors Diamond, DL Silver, TSA Harassee
Posts: 3,657
Yes, there was.
The Republicans wanted to use common sense and institute tougher regulations and federal oversight of PRIVATE screeners.
The Democrats wanted no part of that, thus Daschle's infamous "In order to professionalize, you must federalize" comment.
The Republicans wanted to use common sense and institute tougher regulations and federal oversight of PRIVATE screeners.
The Democrats wanted no part of that, thus Daschle's infamous "In order to professionalize, you must federalize" comment.
Feb 4, 2003, 6:49 am
#49
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: BWI
Programs: AA PLT and that's that!
Posts: 8,349
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by RS:
There's no doubt about your point on aspects of the TSA program - but on the creation of TSA itself, I'm not sure there was that much disagreement, Rep v Dem. No?</font>
There's no doubt about your point on aspects of the TSA program - but on the creation of TSA itself, I'm not sure there was that much disagreement, Rep v Dem. No?</font>
Feb 4, 2003, 9:59 am
#50
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 221
Ok, I read the post about items surrendered to the TSA and where they end up. As usual, someone read what they wanted to in the article. As I read it, TWO AIRPORTS are selling the objects and using the money to offset operating expenses. The state of California is also getting into it to reap something as well. That is FAR from the TSA selling anything that is surrendered to them. I did not read anywhere in the article that the TSA is selling ANYTHING. At least tell it right without all the hyperbole.
Edited for spelling.
[This message has been edited by ACES II (edited 02-04-2003).]
Edited for spelling.
[This message has been edited by ACES II (edited 02-04-2003).]
Feb 4, 2003, 8:44 pm
#52
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 227
That brings up a good point. In fact, at MSP, all "surrendered" metal items end up getting collected by Norwest Airlines. What they do from there, who knows? The government has not set up a standard procedure for what do with these items. Typically, TSA merely collects them and the local airline or government takes it from there.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Next time you get a chance, ask the airline what happens to all the confiscated items, then report back here, and we'll see if they tell the truth. I KNOW what is done with them, but am not at liberty to say.</font>
Next time you get a chance, ask the airline what happens to all the confiscated items, then report back here, and we'll see if they tell the truth. I KNOW what is done with them, but am not at liberty to say.</font>
Feb 5, 2003, 5:18 am
#53
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by TakeScissorsAway:
Next time you get a chance, ask the airline what happens to all the confiscated items, then report back here, and we'll see if they tell the truth. I KNOW what is done with them, but am not at liberty to say.</font>
Next time you get a chance, ask the airline what happens to all the confiscated items, then report back here, and we'll see if they tell the truth. I KNOW what is done with them, but am not at liberty to say.</font>
Most people who think that they have some sort of secret information are just trying to make themselves feel important.
Bruce
Feb 5, 2003, 5:32 am
#54
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raleigh, N.C.
Posts: 732
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Isn't this kind of silly? What, is it a national-security matter where confiscated items end up? Come on!
Most people who think that they have some sort of secret information are just trying to make themselves feel important.
Bruce</font>
Isn't this kind of silly? What, is it a national-security matter where confiscated items end up? Come on!
Most people who think that they have some sort of secret information are just trying to make themselves feel important.
Bruce</font>
[This message has been edited by TakeScissorsAway (edited 02-05-2003).]
Feb 5, 2003, 9:49 pm
#55
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Francisco
Programs: American Airlines Platinum Pro
Posts: 3,412
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by CameraGuy:
Yes, there was.
The Republicans wanted to use common sense and institute tougher regulations and federal oversight of PRIVATE screeners.
The Democrats wanted no part of that, thus Daschle's infamous "In order to professionalize, you must federalize" comment.</font>
Yes, there was.
The Republicans wanted to use common sense and institute tougher regulations and federal oversight of PRIVATE screeners.
The Democrats wanted no part of that, thus Daschle's infamous "In order to professionalize, you must federalize" comment.</font>