TSA clearance a cloudy process

By Azadeh Shahshahani
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
7-29-10

I first met Adnan Tikvesa back in December when I spoke at a symposium on human rights and Islam at the Al-Farooq mosque in Atlanta.

The focus of my talk was the fundamental rights and liberties enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, including every person�s right to due process of law.

I was on my way out when I saw a young man, looking apprehensive, approach me and ask that I take a look at the document in his hand. It was a letter he had received from the Transportation Security Administration.

Adnan is a 25-year-old resident of Atlanta and an American citizen since 2003. He first arrived in America in 1994 as a 9-year-old refugee fleeing the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Mostar, a city in the former Yugoslavia.

Adnan has worked for Delta since October 2004. He was granted clearance in November 2004 for access to the secured areas of Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. His security clearance was renewed in 2006 and again in 2008.

Adnan is part of a family that is proud to work for various employers in the Atlanta airport: his father works for Delta and his mother works for Delta Global Services; they both hold the security clearance. His sister works for the airport customer service.

Adnan has never been convicted of, or even charged with, any crime. He is well-respected by his co-workers and supervisors for the quality of his work.

So why was it that on Nov. 12, 2009, TSA suddenly decided to suspend Adnan�s security clearance without telling him why? To this day, no one knows.

Click through for the rest

TSA should compensate him for the 8 months of lost wages due to their stupidity.

If there is no valid reason for suspension then not only should lost wages be paid but also some amount for the abuse handed out by TSA.

If these people had to put their personal resources on the line when making decisions I bet they would take more care.

Agree. Make them accountable.

Despicable actions by despicable people at a despicable agency.

SHUT IT DOWN!!

Be careful; this type of argument can be used both ways. There are some who would argue that "these people" should be held personally accountable when someone who shouldn't have a security clearance gets one, and later causes a legitimate problem because of that clearance. So, "out of an abundance of caution" (cough), lots of people would be denied clearances who aren't a threat.

Don't get me wrong ... from what the original article says, it sounds like this fellow is entitled to a boatload of compensation. I'm just not sure that individual accountability is necessarily the way to fix this ...

the answer is......
way to go tsa-methinks you're a little bit paranoid about those with brown skin and them funny soundin' names but think hiring convicted felons, sex offenders and pedophiles is ok

I really don't follow your logic.

If people were held accountable for their actions then I think a bit more care would be used before making decisions that adversely impact others.

Let me try again.

Suppose every worker at airport FOX is undergoing a security check, and I'm the person who has to decide whether that worker gets to keep their security clearance. I'm told that if I make a wrong decision, I'll be "held accountable".

I can screw up two different ways:

• If I revoke someone's security clearance who deserves to have it, like this story, I've made a wrong decision, and I'm screwed.
• On the other hand, if I allow someone to retain a security clearance, and then it turns out that he shouldn't have been allowed to keep it (because he ends up blowing up a plane or something), then I made a wrong decision, and I'm screwed. (Along with all his victims, of course.)

So, now here's an application on my desk. It's a borderline case. What do I do? If I improperly renew the clearance, I'll be condemned like the shmucks who gave the Underwear Bomber his visas, even though lots of people seemed to know he was a risk to aviation. If I improperly deny the clearance, I'll be condemned like the shmucks who made this guy's life so difficult for eight months.

All I'm saying is that one can make errors in both directions. That's not an excuse for not getting it right, of course. But how do you chart the middle course?

The key part of your argument is

"It's a borderline case"

We have no such information.

Well, we're talking about a theoretical problem here ... would holding people personally responsible for screw-ups like this make them rarer? I'm not sure that such an approach might not cause other problems.

But I'm probably trying to make too subtle a point ...

The reason why F-ups like this happen is because there is no personal accountability within the federal government. Employees almost never pay - in any sense whatsoever - for screwing up.

I'm not saying the people responsible need to pay the victim compensation - that would bring government to a halt. What I am saying is that federal employees ought to experience some kind of consequences when they F up.

Unfortunately we are not talking about a theoretical problem here.

But in your theoretical example, I would suggest that if it was "borderline" maybe an interview with the person would be in order?

On that, I'll gladly agree. In any job, one should be expected to do the job properly in order to keep the job.

I really don't want to pursue the hypothetical too much further here ... we can add enough "what-ifs" to the problem to get distracted from the original point, which I've pretty much lost at this point ... which was to clarify what we mean by "holding responsible". halls120 got it right: perhaps not personal financial liability, but certainly there should be consequences in the workplace.

or perhaps there should be systems of procedural fairness and natural justice so that when decisions like this are made, there is an independent path of review available.