I agree. We had no idea that DB Cooper would be a problem before the flight and we have had airline employees (or ex-airline employees) do bad things as was noted. There is NO way to predict who will have a bad day.

What part of no dangerous weapons should ever get past security is still in doubt?

I cannot see why weapons should be allowed on board a plane just because someone is in a position of authority, elected, appointed or otherwise in situations that do not involve in-flight safety and security.

Let's not forget that even a "Marine of the Year" can have a bad day and then some. (Reference Daniel Cotnoir.) :(

Got me confused. I see two completely separate issues: "de-weaponizing" some items such as scissors and short bladed knives AND exempting certain passengers either from the full Monty or as selectees. But I missed the part about allowing certain people to keep weapons just because they happen to be elected officials.

UNLESS your point is that by exempting certain people from screening that they can easily sneak weapons aboard because they know they will not be screened. In this case, I think you're raising a very valid point.

Maybe the point of the whole operation of removing items from the prohbitied list is to actually help the screeners focus on the real threats. I wonder if there has been enough field experience that indicates that searching for all of these items on the prohibited list has caused the screeners to miss more blatant objects that constitute a real threat to security.

It may be as simple as looking at this this way. If I focus on small pointy objects, that in reality have very little likelihood of becoming a threat to the plane, am I missing the bigger more dangerous stuff? A 5" knife is not a threat (if they mean blade plus handle, if just blade then that is too much). A screwdriver is not a threat, a pair of reasonable scissors is not a threat. A gun is a threat, a bomb is a threat, the guy in line who is sweating like a pig and constantly looking around is a threat.

So the point maybe, lets redirect our resources to look at where the threats are, and how we may more easily detect these threats.

However, I do not think many of these changes will get through, unless of course other nations go along with this thinking.

Not to mention that the Royal Family stayed in London during the Blitz, Stalin stayed in Moscow with the Germans at 20 miles, and it is not such a big sacrifice for our elected officials and leaders to subject themselves to the same procedures with the rest of us. I agree that giving a secondary to Tom DeLay is a waste of time. Yet it is a very little time and it is good for the morale of the rest of the nation.

So I guess that FBI agents, among others, must no longer fly with their sidearms?

Why not put it in its nice wooden box in their checked baggage ? Do they think they are gonna arrest somebody during the flight ?

No Sir! They make for free Air Marshals! They register with the flight crews so everyone is on the same page. Their job is law enforcement. Marines are not trained the same way.

Anyway the long and short of it is .... Everybody goes through security!

Would you rather them not be able to? I mean, what's the likelihood that a sky marshall's going to arrest someone in flight?

Those are certainly two separate issues.

I am all in favor of "re-classification" that "de-weaponizes" many of the more mundane items currently categorized as "weapons". These lists of prohibited "dual-use"-type items don't do much especially when a more dense bottle of alcohol can do just the same "damage" and is generally not prohibited.

I am opposed to government officials (current or former) being exempted from the same type of haraSSSSment that is reserved for the general population or even the most despised -- and still "free" -- subsets of the general population. To personally experience "the common" provides a sense of urgency about resolving some of the negative experiences of those who are not opinion-directing elites and not in positions of "authority"/"privilege"; exempt said groups and we will have even slower improvement (if any).

Can't speak for all airports; however, I truly doubt this to be the case. I think that perhaps, for once, saner heads may be prevailing here. If we were to what-if the so-called "dual-use items" (items not deliberately designed as weapons but theoretically can be used as weapons) to an extreme, then we would fall off the deep end into a state of complete government-sponsored paranoia. The prohibited items list was always an overzealous one that aimed to prevent theoretically dangerous potential use of common items in a zero risk environment. I think that some of the princes in the TSA castle have finally grasped the concept of risk-management. That is, allow certain risks because the probability of those risks actually materializing is really remote or at an acceptable level.

Actually, looking for bombs requires focusing on very small and minute details of components that make up an improvised explosive device. Even looking for firearms requires an attention to detail. Very rarely are firearms detected in a perfect profile. Most often, they are angled and the screener needs to be able to identify trigger housings, pistol grips and barrels which may be disassembled inside the bag.

I would say redirect our resources on more realistic threats. It's difficult to draw the line between reasonable and unacceptable risk. "Reasonable risk" means acknowledging the fact that an item can be used as a potential weapon but placing a bet that it won't. Or if it does, that the damage will be limited on an acceptable level. Not many bureaucrats have the testicle fortitude to make that decision, especially once society has been already conditioned to accept the more stringent standard.

As for other nations, there are international standards. But I think you will find them limited to the big threat items such as pipe bombs, IEDs, handguns and certain knives.

If they organize it in such a way that there won't be Sky Marshals and FBI agents on the same flight, then you have a point. Also, the FBI should get training for the special procedures they have to follow in such an unique environment as an in-flight liner.

Understood. Agree to a certain extent. Now come back to Earth. If a politician were to experience the same things that the rest of us commoners experience, do you truly think the first thought in his or her mind would be, "so this is how it feels like...oh the poor b*stards and what they must have to endure" ????

No, it's more like, "hey! They can't treat me like this! Don't these b*stards know who I am!" Ergo, the exemption for politicians but NOT a change in the procedures for the rest of us common slugs.

Stereotypes don't always hold: it does depend on the individual politician. ;)

My reasoning relates to take-aways from experiences like the following:

One (now deceased) high-level government official (you couldn't go higher than him in his country for a few years) had not visited a post office in over 50 years (official ceremonies and campaigning aside). After "wrapping up", he went to the post office at the urging of a family friend to see the mess that was the postal system. I am sure -- having talked to him for many hours after that experience -- that if he had been subject to the same treatment as the general population for all the years when he was still in office, he would have perhaps considered improving matters when he could have. At least that is what he said. ;) (Some politicians do have principles even if that one did not always.)

Re the original post, much of this sounds good, but exempting people wholesale from screening sounds like a lousy idea. First, how do we know that someone in a uniform is actually a pilot, judge, member of congress, etc.? Pieces of plastic that say "judge" or "pilot" can be faked. And it's not like the TSA agents or private screening contractors are experts in spotting fakes, and as we know from experience with state drivers licenses, "legitimate" fake IDs can be bought.

Second, you've got the danger of mules. As mentioned above, people, even members of congress, show up with guns at the airport accidentally. So we've got both the danger of them accidentally bringining in their own weapons, them doing it on purpose, and the danger of them being used unwittingly to do it for terrorists.

Third, we don't know that these people aren't "bad" or won't go "bad" or take money in order to enable terrorists (see my second response to grouse below.

Agreed.

Also agreed.

Furthermore, they don't have to "go off their nut" but rather just become greedy or desperate for cash. People who work in motor vehicle departments are often bought off to issue fake IDs (that are completely legit) for cash. What's to say that any of these exempted people aren't going to be greedy or in a bind and take some $$$ in exchange for carrying a gun through.

Someone who wouldn't go on a suicide mission might take $100,000 in cash to help others do just that. It's a lot easier to buy someone's assistance in smuggling a gun into an airport than it is to convince them to hijack a plane.

Or then there was the bank robbery in Ireland not too long ago where the robbers kidnapped the bank manager's family and threatened to kill them if he didn't open up the vault.

I like this guy's idea for not exempting congressmen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/op...16tierney.html

Yeah. Pre 9/11 I normally carried a couple of tools with sharp edges. They were simply what was normally in my bag when I wasn't travelling.

You know, I was on the fence about exempting some people from the lines. I'll admit, it'd be nice as I could have benefited. However, seeing that line made me change my mind. If it'll get Congress to act on it by standing in line, I'll wait in line too.

Super

I don't know Bart. It's a LOT tougher than that to get a TS clearance.

Some agencies offer multiple people the same job because at least 50% of people can't get TS cleared. Biggest reason: drugs. Some agencies don't recruit at some schools like Berkeley because of that. Too many people flunked. :)

These investigations typically take months ... maybe 3 if you're squeaky clean but often at least 6 months and a year isn't unheard of.

Now true, it might be that they just aren't able to find anything derrogatory, but they dig deep. Most of the people they talk to are derived from the leads that you give them. Everyone's had a supervisor that they didn't get along with, and they'll find out who your college roommate was. They're looking for the dirt.

Of course, people flunk the polygraph multiple times. Flunk enough, and you're out.

And it's not like people aren't reinvestigated, and you can't do things to a clearance revoked. Even something "small" like adultery could get it revoked.

The exemption may not be warranted, but getting a TS clearance isn't as easy some might think, and it's a lot more thorough than what SecureFlight would bring us.

So maybe if they do use SecureFlight, a TS clearance just means that another agency investigated instead of DHS or TSA. Frankly, I'd trust an investigation for TS a lot more than what TSA has the time and resources to do.

It all involves trust at some point ... whether TSA or another agency grants that trust.

Bottom line: if people can get easier passes for participating in SecureFlight, then I think the exemptions would be warranted.

Super