Go read over there at PV. Plenty of conflicting info over there. TSA doesn't do anything to rein in the screeners that are giving bad info.

I don't disagree with you that gate security didn't cause the hijackings. I do disagree with you that private security companies could do better. Let me define, at this point, what I mean by private security companies: companies hired by airlines to perform passenger screening in accordance with FAA regulations and other applicable policies independent of TSA efforts. Contrary to popular belief, there are no private security companies working today at airports under this definition. There are a small handful of non-TSA employees who work at airports performing these functions, but they are, for all intents and purposes, more like government contractors than they are true private security companies. They are hired, trained and evaluated on the exact same standard as TSA employees. The only difference is their uniforms and personnel management system.

Having said that, TSA is far superior to the private screening companies that existed pre-9/11. The training is far superior, the resourcing is far superior, and the cooperation with other agencies is far superior.

The challenge is in personnel management, leadership and operational supervision. That's no different than any other organization. In this area, I think TSA needs improvement not because it's a failure but because I believe it can do so much better. I think Kip Hawley did a great job trying to improve TSA through innovation and proactive thinking; I think he was far better than any of the other administrators we had previous to him. Yeah, I'm the first to say that the BDO program needs to go, but not because it doesn't work. It does work, it's extraordinarily effective! My problem is that so far it's done a great job at catching drug smugglers, and I think that will detract us from our primary mission if we continue with this program. Would it be a good tool for catching a would-be terrorist? You betcha! However, looking at it strictly in terms of bang-for-the-buck, I think the techniques used by BDOs would be better served incorporated into the checkpoint than being segregated as something super secret and specialized. I think the manpower devoted to BDOs would be better served working at checkpoint and checked baggage screening, but the techniques they use could be incorporated into regular screening.

I think the screening technologies TSA has brought about are needed and far superior to anything the private companies were able to develop. I worked in management for a private security company and as a checkpoint supervisor (I basically forced them to demote me so I could work the floor). The private security company I worked for was more interested in protecting its profit margin than it was in improving checkpoint security. It only did enough to survive FAA inspections, and even then, was frequently found in violation and had to pay fines in tens of thousands of dollars. You would think the FAA would terminate the contract, but it never happened (until TSA finally took over the operation).

Yeah, you're right, federalizing checkpoint screening was not a direct remedy. And you can blame media hysteria for part of that. If you recall, there were a lot of news stories that came out during that time pointing out the flaws in airport security screening and only inflamed demands for a federalized screener workforce. But I disagree with you that there's a better alternative than TSA. I think TSA does fulfill this function; and I think TSA still has room to grow and improve.

It's amazing what security innovations can occur if an organization ignores the law and makes up the rules as they go.

If Kippie really was that great compared to other administrators, then it really shows the level of incompetence that has infested TSA from the beginning. Tells me that the lack of terrorist attacks comes more from luck than from anything TSA is doing.

At least the other administrators didn't harass us as much with their incompetence as Kippie has with his.

I can always recognise failure to be accountable when someone starts blaming "the media". "The media" doesn't create problems, it reports on them. If there were a "lot of news stories" it was because there were a lot of things happening that were newsworthy.

I'm not blaming the media for any failure. I am pointing out that during the aftermath of 9/11, there were a lot of media stories about the problems private airport security companies had at performing their jobs. If I recall correctly, I think the proverbial straw involved Argenbright security, a very reputable company, that allowed several grenades, guns and knives to slip through one of its checkpoints in a media-staged event. If you don't think this inflamed the debate of private vs. federal that was ongoing at the time, then you're just being disingenuous to this whole discussion.

I'm really disappointed in you. You used to have such insightful posts and now resort to silliness. You seriously believe that TSA could get away with ignoring the law with Congress looking over its shoulders? You don't believe that TSA was held accountable by Congress? You are aware that until very recently, TSA employees were the only federal employees to NOT receive any pay raises, bonuses or other salary rewards? Don't you think if TSA really abused the system as you allege, that it would certainly come up with some sort of pay incentives to retain employees? Fact is that TSA lost a lot of its employees because the pay scale remained static for the first four years (cost of living adjustments are not pay raises).

Well call me silly too, but I do not believe Congress does either of those things. They were supposed to but, with a couple of courageous exceptions, nobody there is going to do anything remotely appearing to be "soft" on the WoT. Congress looking over its shoulders ? How many times has the oversight committee actually met and what if anything of substance has come out of it ? And I don't mean your pay grades or fancy, aggrandizing titles; I mean holding the TSA accountable to the law.

Show me I'm wrong. Please.

Sure, do your own research. Google congressional testimonies by TSA administrators and take your pick from the 5,700 hits.

I have to admit that I am somewhat puzzled that you or anyone else seriously believes that TSA is outside the law and/or that Congress does nothing to monitor TSA. :rolleyes:

Sure. Just look at the last round where Kippie went to Congress for TSA cheating on exams. Congress beat its chest and then things went away. Nothing changed.

We've been discussing this with the passive MMW that they're testing at BOS. There's Supreme Court decisions that show they're pretty much out of bounds. Go read Kyllo vs. US. Compare that to what TSA's doing and the claims TSA's making vs. what the cops made. They're very similar. It's not my problem if you come late to the party and don't see it.

I'm not convinced TSA's CGC really knows what she's doing, considering she was in charge when one of her lawyers almost blew the Moussaoui trial and she results to Google for definitions when the definitions she needs are included in the law she's citing. If anything, it indicates she's playing fast and loose with the law.

Tell me, Bart, outside of some occasional chest thumping, what has Congress actually done to monitor TSA? I see no evidence of them actually doing anything outside of a few occasional show pieces.

Congress made sure we closed that big loophole of permitting lighters on board. :rolleyes: (which thankfully has now been rescinded)

Could be because you are just not reading in the right places.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/su...0,692213.story

TSORon, from the story you quoted:



Even the folks who arrested the guy admit that the guy wasn't a terrorist. Nice try though. Come back and play when you find a real terrorist.

From the article you linked to
This example of the TSA stopping a terrorist fails.

From the article:

"Officials discounted the idea that Nobles was involved in a terrorist plot and he said he meant no harm"

TSOROn, with respect, I'm not sure how the link is relevant to this particular argument. Doober asked for evidence for a terrorist attack averted by the TSA. Your link describes the capture of a man for attempting to bring a pipe bomb aboard an aircraft --- but the article itself states:

So ... it doesn't appear that this is evidence of TSA catching a terrorist. Or am I missing something?

(Aside: yes, attempting to bring a pipe bomb aboard an airplane was dangerous and stupid, and TSA should've stopped him, as they did. Good job, TSA. But that doesn't answer the question on whether or not this person was a terrorist.)