The BBC "gets it", why doesn't the TSA?
 

Take a look at the section "banning hand luggage" in this article. Why doesn't the TSA yet "get it" with regard to "pointy objects?"

I suspect that high-level TSA management does "get it" but continues the charade in order to satisfy perceived public demand. When the public stops asking the government to do idiotic things, maybe the government will stop doing idiotic things. We can hope, anyway!

On the other hand, many front-line TSA employees definitely do not get it; they actually believe that confiscating tiny scissors and the like protects the United States from terrorist attack! Ignorance is bliss, I guess!

Bruce

I agree, but it appears it was preemptive. The government decided to do a bunch of silly things to pacify the public before they ever had a chance to complain about a lack of "security."

I'm not sure whether that ultimately makes reform harder or easier.

After 9/11/01, nobody had to complain! It was well understood! The public demanded some sort of action, and the government provided it. Nobody stopped to think about whether or not the actions were effective. Then a bunch of retired military and law-enforcement wannabes were hired and told that they were protecting the public from terrorists -- and they believe it! We may never dig ourselves out from under this mess!

Bruce

I fear you're right.

Watch out for the Real ID bill in Congress. For certain states, it will mandate a new ID system in order to fly.

ummm
 

Opinion

I had hoped we were finished with the useless "opinion" posts. :rolleyes:

The virtue of profiling passengers
 

Even the Clinton/Gore expirement "got it" in 1996. Well, that was until the airline industry and other "concerned" groups supplied the DNC and the Clinton/Gore campaign with funds for the '96 election. In keeping with the "requests" of these "supporters", the '97 Gore's security recommendations were watered down to the point of being irrelevant, allowing Atta and co. to board the flights on 9/11. The upside to all of this - Bush and co. have brought the fight to the enemy and radical islamists are being killed on a daily basis. :cool:

The recommendations combine computerized profiling of all airline passengers and high-technology detection devices -- measures designed to address the changing and increasing threat of terrorism.

http://nsi.org/library/safety/aviationsec.html

You may need to get some facts straight about what occurred and did not occur vis-a-vis the White House Commission on Aviation Safety & Security. The campaign financing you claim had an influence on aviation security via the Clinton-Gore campagin is a claim with very, very limited substance. ;) [Look at the timing of the final report for one of many indicators of your errors.]

Furthermore, at the time of the 9/11 attacks, are we certain that the "box cutters" allegedly used were not permissible to pass the security checkpoints?

We do know that standard training for most people in the aviation industry at the time was to fully cooperate with hijackers. We know what that led to.

Except that it appears they're recruiting at a greater rate than they're being killed. Your comment would be laughable if our lives weren't being put at risk by poor government policy, strategy and tactics at home and abroad.

Going into Afghanistan was "bringing the fight to them." Doing a half-a$$ job, letting the bad guys get away and then rushing into an unrelated country which boosted anti-American sentiment and increased terrorist recruiting is putting us at more risk, not less.

This profiling stuff is garbage. All it's going to do (and has been doing for years) is jerk around a lot of innocent people, but do nothing to catch bad guys.

Keep real weapons off planes, have secure cockpit doors and informed pax/crew and we're all set. Do a search in this forum for "secure flight" or "CAPPS II" for plenty of discussion on the topic.

They may get it on that point, but the other ideas are silly. "Increased security presence at airports"? Like having a bunch more guys standing around is going to stop hijackings?

Iris scans and palm prints? Unless terrorists don't have irises, that's not getting us anywhere either.

The timing of the report is the key indicator that you are wrong. The initial findings (pre 96 election) were watered down, hence the final report in 97, all to please a few people during election time.

Box cutters were legal to bring on board on 9/11; all the more reason to introduce country of origin/citizen status checks in air travel and travel in general.

:confused:

Boxcutters used to be legal, thus we should only let citizens fly?

I don't understand the logic.

I think that the logic is because boxcutters were legal on 9/11, the important factor was the person carrying the legal object. Even today, bringing a sharpened #2 pencil on an airliner is legal. For you and me, that object is only a pencil. In the hands of a trained killer, that pencil is a deadly weapon. In college, G. Gordon Liddy gave a lecture during which he explained how a #2 pencil through the soft palate of the mouth can quickly kill someone. If dangerous people can be identified at checkpoints, screening can concentrate on them, rather than pat-down searches of grandmothers, young children, etc.

This reasoning is why the TSA approach of looking for pointy objects, shoes, etc. with screeners is so irrational. Invest in technology to improve the efficacy of this approach, but better yet concentrate on the people at the checkpoint if we are serious about security. Of course, all cargo loaded on airliners should also be screened, rather than just worrying about shoes and passengers' checked bags. Finally, ground personnel should be investigated and monitored more closely, since they have access to airplanes. Again, these suggestions presume that real security is the goal, rather than just a dog and pony show.

^ ^