Most people with a Secret or Top Secret security clearance are not undercover, it's just part of their job or business. All officers in the Armed Forces have at least a Secret, along with many people working in the White House, State Department, etc. For any persons that have undergone a security clearance and background check, they know how stupid it is to be asked to "remove your shoes" or even pass through a metal detector. One can be cleared to handle sensitive national security documents and work for the POTUS in the White House, but he or she can't get on a freaking plane any faster than some chump on parole for murder? Yeah, that's bright :rolleyes:

Not true at most airports.

There are two problems, as I see it, with letting trusted people skip security. One is the risk of complacency (the "I forgot I was armed" case), and the other is the risk of those people feeling above the law. There is a very simple solution: screen members of the trusted groups roughly 10% of the time, obviously with some randomization thrown in. Prosecute anyone caught with inappropriate materials, no matter how insignifcant. Nobody will want to lose their job/clearance/etc. over such a thing, so they will make darn sure they are "clean" before heading through the special line.

I don't see a trusted person being compromised as a risk, because, let's face it, there is much more damage that can done by these folks than being a mule through security.

Well intuitively it is "funny" to make such cleared people remove their shoes, in reality it is necessary. With no formal ID system nor other way to verify one's clearance level and status, and with potentially millions of people cleared, it is necessary to screen them too (and I am one who is normally against most of TSA's assinine policies).

Now, are we talking about excluding them from random SSSS? Well, I think that should be done away with anyway.

I would agree that the average level of trustworthiness between the different groups in the TSA memo may vary significantly. However, being a general officer just means that one is very adept at working within the system - history has proven that even general officers are not without character issues.

If someone offered me the chance to board a plane containing only unscreened people (with identities verified) from the groups named in the TSA memo, I would have no problem with it - even if I was sitting next to the 21 year old bow-wielding contractor wearing a throwing star for a belt buckle.
Sure, there could be a bad apple in the bunch, and perhaps one may even have unwittingly brought something aboard as a "mule". However, I have much more fear of the unscreened illegal alien with a felony record working for the catering company that stocks the plane. I also have a much bigger fear of the logsitics guy working for one of the companies on the "trusted shipper" list that dumps unscreened cargo into the airplane.

There will always be holes - ideally I would like to see some level of screening for everyone. However, I'm in favor of anything that can shift efforts to address higher risk areas.

in the case i mentioned, the disgruntled psa employee was either an f/a or held a ground postion but was defintley not flight deck crew and that's the premise for my post. i have absolutely no problem w/flight deck crews being armed and with that, they should go thru a "separate security check" but for all others (including unarmed flight deck personell), there should be no exceptions.

Excluding congresspeople and judges does nothing to help streamline the screening process, as there are only a few thousands of them.
Instead, it will be perceived as an insufferable privilege by the "normal" population.
Hope they'll think about that and not exempt themselves from being checked.
On seconds thoughts, I'm not sure those people care what the common folks think...

I think the reinforced cockpit doors go along way to alleviating that. The only way those doors are opening is if someone on the other side opens them.

Very true. However, there are some that are under cover at any given time, and some of the programs DHS has proposed could put those in jeopardy. And as I said before, there are some organizations who aren't thrilled with those programs.

You're right. The hijacker, David Burke, was a ticket agent for USAir. He was on an unpaid leave of absence, travelling on a paid ticket aboard PSA 1771.

Any of you guys know who this michaelchertoff guy is that's now posting here?

I didn't think posts about other posters were permitted. Well, allowed by the rules, in any case.

As to who I am, why on earth would you expect to have any standing to find that out, given your oft expressed demands that your travel "privacy" be respected, even at the cost of the safety of others?

Something of a conundrum, no?

Rules don't prohibit asking about who someone is. Asking who "idiot named xxxxxx" is.

Just want to know who I'm dealing with, friend.

I didn't think privacy would matter to you, seeing as it's an "empty headed principle." I mean if it makes us safer knowing who you are ... why should it matter, to use your words?

LOL. Good to see my suspicions about the depth of your principles turned out to be dead on.

Anyways, ask away. And remember that you had the "right to do so" the next time you pass through security.

Something tells me that there are "lots of differences" between your rights and mine.

Don't you have to go school tomorrow? You need your sleep. Or does your school start later?

You know, that's bull**** too. Or rather it's not but you know exactly why these things should be prohibited. The problem with the US is that some people confuse common sense security with some kind of attack on their freedom and lump it in with stuff like shoe carnivals. Carrying weapons on flights and having your shoes left on at security are not the same deal which ever way you cut it.

Shoe searches are idiotic and provide a facade of security where asking people not to carry weapons is a useful measure. I'm not talking about weapons as nail files, scissors and letter openers here, just hunting knives, swords, throwing stars, bows and so on. We've had this for decades in Europe and I don't feel opressed.

Go Kip Go!
 

See another article at http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel...l=chi-news-hed

If you ask me, we have too much "common sense" security. What the govt really needs to do is get people of average intelligence together in a room and ask them to pretend to be terrorists and plan an attack on an airliner using only what is allowed. Out of that, I suspect you'd discover that real security would involve banning cell phones, laptops, powercords and battery powered consumer electronics of all kinds.

Your emphasis on small knives and throwing stars reminds me of an anecdote a friend told me about some German friends of his. They carefully wrapped all of their meat while cooking to avoid any charring (cancer risk, you see), while all along they chain-smoked cigarettes.

The real answer is not to ban "things". The only way to stop terrorism on airlines is to stop the people who might commit acts of terrorism. The focus on material items is pretty ridiculous.

True, there are lots of things you need to do but it seems to be a no-brainer to say "You know sir, that handgun needs to be checked" rather than saying "It's either naked and without posessions or fully kitted like a Navy SEAL on the way to combat, one or the other".

The point I was making was that there's no reason to carry throwing stars on a flight so why even take the risk that someone may use them. Some things have no utility on a plane whatsoever (although I suppose if you get into a fight with a frequent flyer ninja then the throwing stars, caltrops, swords and tiger claws may be useful) and as such should prove relatively easy to get people to agree to. The fact you can't carry some things is not the same as having to be strip searched on the way into the airport and I think it's important to view them as separate issues.


Good luck on that one, be sure to contact the White House, Downing Street et al when you find the answer.

I talked to some pilots yesterday and they were very concerned about the knifes being allowed, throwing stars, etc. One was a flight deck officer and he was opposed to the crew being exempt also. I think the shoes should be allowed and if you alarm the walk through get secondary screening.

I'm sure most everyone agrees with your view, but you must admit that its a tad simplistic. We could also cure world hunger by feeding the hungry. Just how do you propose stopping the people that commit such acts prior to their committing them?

Have a great day all! :p

You keep repeating that like a mantra, but there is a reason to carry throwing stars on a flight. Someone taking them from one place to another may not want to check bags. That is a reason and it is just as legitimate as your choice of what shirt to wear. You wouldn't want people walking around saying "Meiji, there is no reason for you to be wearing a blue shirt today."

So what you are saying it that terror doesn't kill people, terrorists kill people. :D

But the problem with that is that it really is hard to predict when somebody is going to go over the edge. It is reasonable to not allow dangerous "things" in the passenger cabin. I agree some things being banned are silly such as nail clippers.

I have a problem with exempting certain individuals from screening, simply because I don't trust their credentials to be properly verified.

If the same clowns who check my boarding pass upside down are the ones verifying who is part of cabin crew, has top-secret clearance, or is a member of congress, then I think that is a huge loophole. Now perhaps those people could be automatically exempt from SSSS. But if they alarm or something is suspicious in their luggage, they should be treated no differently than anyone else.

Again, it's amusing at best to see the difference netween the "rights" some want for themselves versus those they would extend to others. All the while accusing those who see these people for what they are of immaturity.

I didn't come here looking for civilized debate.. it's clear to even the most casual reader that no civilized people post here.

Question: Would you rather get on a plane and find that the person next to you is a Navy SEAL officer carrying all his weapons or a member of Al Qaeda equipped only with a broken beer bottle?

What the article didn't clarify is if certain people are going to be exempt from the screening process entirely or from the selectee passenger screening policy. I don't have a problem with airline pilots and their first officers being exempted from the screening process entirely as a bare minimum. As I've pointed out previously, they don't need a pair of scissors or a handgun to pose a threat. All they have to do is just point the nose of the plane towards the ground.

As for the rest of the people mentioned in the article, it's a matter of how much risk TSA and the airlines are willing to mitigate. I don't have a problem with military flag officers being exempted but won't cry foul if they are not exempted. I understand the logic behind exempting someone like General Pete Schoomaker from airport security screening. In addition to being the Chief of Staff for the United States Army, he was one of the original DELTA Force commandos during EAGLE CLAW more popularly (and infamously) known as Desert One. General Schoomaker would get a free pass in my book.

Your point, however, about verifying the authenticity of credentials is well made. I think you make the erroneous assumption that such decisions would be left up to the contracted ticket readers hired by the airlines at the entrance to the airport and, at least at Logan, the exit lanes.

^ ^ ^

Undoubtedly thousands of Americans took boxcutters and small knives onto passenger airliners before 9/11/01 without incident. Nineteen hijackers used boxcutters and small knives with devastating results. Since 9/11, numerous Americans have unintentionally carried knives onto planes without incident. This issue is very similar to firearms - an object is not going to attack an airliner on its own. A person called a terrorist has to initiate the attack.

If congressman Doofus carries his weapon wherever he goes, and he is allowed to carry on board, all a terrorist has to do is discover the congressmans schedule, board the same flight, punch his lights out and grab the gun.

I didn't say I had an answer. I said that is where our focus ought to be. And that is exactly where the focus of counter-terrorism groups in the FBI and CIA are today. But it is not the focus of the TSA. The TSA's focus is on appeasing frightenend people by banning small pointy things and Cat Stevens.

I thought the exemptions for the identified classes was from selectee (SSSS) screening, not a blank check to waltz onto a plane without any screening whatsoever. I would not even mind if such members of the identified classes could keep their shoes on during screening. :D Seriously, I have seen pilots remove their shoes at the WTMD. I know that those individuals were pilots because they walked through the gate jetway door before the door was open for any passengers.

I also agree with the posters who have concerns about those verifying the credentials/ID of "exempted" individuals. This issue naturally leads to the question about proof of identification. Some people are very recognizable - certain members of Congress. OTOH, federal court judges are by and large not well known, at least by appearance.

Regarding military, I could not believe the story I heard about Joe Foss. He was a Marine ace pilot during World War II. The airport at Sioux Falls, South Dakota (FSD) is named for him. Shortly after TSA became operational, he was given a secondary because he was traveling with his medals in carry on. At first blush, this action rates :mad:; however, upon further review, the problem is proof of identification. I do not recall the airport where this occurred, but it would be the height of irony if it happened at FSD.

I would have trusted my life to Joe Foss (he recently passed away) no matter what weapon he was carrying, but it just occurred to me that if he were carrying a weapon, a bad guy could seize it from him and use it on someone. As long as the weapon were not an explosive, it would almost certainly not damage the airplane, so no huge problem like 9/11 or Lockerbie. Interesting issue, this risk avoidance versus risk management.

It may be a minute point of English, but I see a statement that items are banned on airplanes and feel it is wrong.

Since sky marshals are armed, guns are not banned on airplanes.

Only the general flying public is prohibited from carrying a gun. The TSA list is called Permitted and Prohibited Items, but it only applies to "you". I guess SMs are not in the "you" category.

Also, a previous quote listed "knives less than five inches long" as being considered for the unbanned list.

In another thread, the Orange County DA is prosecuting someone for having a letter opener.

Just wondering if the Evil Letter Opener is over or under five inches? Yes, the rules were not changed when the E.L.O. owner was captured, but would they be innocent under the proposed rule change? I doubt it will stop the OC DA, no doubt he is running for higher office and wants to show the state how "tough on crime" he is.

How can I be sure he is a Navy Seal?

I would imagine that if he is dressed in uniform and carrying his weapons that the TSA would have throrougly checked his identification and proof of being a SEAL.

My preference would be that only bonified Sky Marshal's have firearms. I still have not made up my mind about pilots having them.

But then there is no real reason for Navy Seals, duck hunters or any other passenger possessing weapons.

Well that's true perhaps but should this be extended to assault rifles or dynamite?


I dunno, blue shirts aren't my thing so perhaps the fashion police would say that, and they'd be right. On the other hand, nobody could use my wearing of a blue shirt to down a plane.

Nightmares of Sillipidity
 

My thoughts keep coming back to this other thread:

What is the most silly thing you have seen at a check point??

OP:

For me it was right after 9/11 and the National Guard was protecting the airports. In fairness nobody quite knew what the new rules should be.

But at a check point right past the WTMD, a security worker was wanding a Guard who still had the rifle in his hand. Maybe they were worried he had a knife?

I'm with Bart on all this.

Let's not get too excited about this, though. The impact of these changes is likely to be very minor.

Quick quiz: What fraction of airplane passengers fall into one of the soon-to-be-exempted categories (members of Congress, general officers, pilots, etc.)? My guess is 0 -- and I bet I'm right to within several digits of precision.

Changes to the secondary, SSSS, and shoe-removal policies might have a bigger impact, but I wasn't very clear on exactly what changes were being proposed, and I suspect we're going to have to wait to see how this translates into practice before we can assess its impact.

From the way the proposal is being described right now, it sounds like the biggest impact may be to PR -- namely, we won't see as many news articles saying "look how stupid airport screening is; the screener are hassling another Congresscritter/judge/four-star general". The TSA has been getting bad press on topics like this for some time now, and it sounds like an attempt to cut off this kind of bad press.
http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00173.html
http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00171.html
http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00174.html

You know, I've heard this before, and I've never understood it. Can you explain more concretely what this would mean? I'm lost.

The problem is that we don't know who the terrorists are. What do you propose to do about that? How precisely do you propose to stop people who might commit terrorism, when we don't know who those people are?

And, are you suggesting that we do away with the X-ray machines and the screening checkpoints? That we stop trying to prevent guns, bombs, and other dangerous "things" of this ilk from being brought onto planes? If so, that sounds like a counter-intuitive proposal.

I'd be interested to hear your reasoning on this, because I don't find it obvious.

Or there might actually be people at TSA HQ who are finally hearing the complaints from passengers and TSA front-liners.

Possible, but not holding my breath.