Airport Security - Just another Bush Failure

[green1]

Personally, I took the time to read this http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Hindsight is wonderful. Personally I like to read about how the US screwed up in it's December 6, 1941 analysis of Japanese intentions to US military strength in the Pacific.

[RAGTOP]

happy reading

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d011165t.p ... luggage%22

http://www.securitymanagement.com/libra ... luggage%22

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04440t.pd ... reening%22

lots of good stuff in here. I've read about 15 minutes worth but I havn't come to the part that clearly states more contraband is being let onto planes now as opposed to prior to 9/11. I'll keep reading.

[ph4ever]

Personally, I took the time to read this http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Hindsight is wonderful. Personally I like to read about how the US screwed up in it's December 6, 1941 analysis of Japanese intentions to US military strength in the Pacific.

However the question raised was where did we get our rushing to the Iraque war feelings.

[krusin1]

servicemen and woman who are dying every day thanks to his rushing in to war.

Where do you people get this "rushing to war" line from. Oh yes democrat talking points. There were 17 UN Resolutions that led up to the rush to war. Each one was violated. Saddam was thumbing his nose to the entire world, he had gassed and executed his own citizens. We should have rushed to war there a lot sooner. We did rush to war in Afganistan with cause. I wonder how many lives might have been saved if we had rushed to war when Germany was exterminating millions.

Personally, I took the time to read this http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Didja read pg. 148 (last page of the document)? Kit Bond is a stand-up guy (yes, I've met him personally) who helped write these pages - I think you'll find the comments interesting... and perhaps inconvenient...

[ph4ever]

servicemen and woman who are dying every day thanks to his rushing in to war.

Where do you people get this "rushing to war" line from. Oh yes democrat talking points. There were 17 UN Resolutions that led up to the rush to war. Each one was violated. Saddam was thumbing his nose to the entire world, he had gassed and executed his own citizens. We should have rushed to war there a lot sooner. We did rush to war in Afganistan with cause. I wonder how many lives might have been saved if we had rushed to war when Germany was exterminating millions.

Personally, I took the time to read this http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Didja read pg. 148 (last page of the document)? Kit Bond is a stand-up guy (yes, I've met him personally) who helped write these pages - I think you'll find the comments interesting... and perhaps inconvenient...

of course I read them however I also realize that these senate investigations can be filled with errors and misconceptions. Sometimes they tend to leave many questions unanswered.

[green1]

However the question raised was where did we get our rushing to the Iraque war feelings.

So how does a hindsight review of US decisions counter the 17 UN reolutions, and the corroborative intelligence of at least 4 NATO allies, and make this a rush to war?

[krusin1]

servicemen and woman who are dying every day thanks to his rushing in to war.

Where do you people get this "rushing to war" line from. Oh yes democrat talking points. There were 17 UN Resolutions that led up to the rush to war. Each one was violated. Saddam was thumbing his nose to the entire world, he had gassed and executed his own citizens. We should have rushed to war there a lot sooner. We did rush to war in Afganistan with cause. I wonder how many lives might have been saved if we had rushed to war when Germany was exterminating millions.

Personally, I took the time to read this http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Didja read pg. 148 (last page of the document)? Kit Bond is a stand-up guy (yes, I've met him personally) who helped write these pages - I think you'll find the comments interesting... and perhaps inconvenient...

of course I read them however I also realize that these senate investigations can be filled with errors and misconceptions. Sometimes they tend to leave many questions unanswered.

From your response, I'm thinking perhaps you didn't read the whole document so closely as you claim...

To quote the relevant passage... (pg. 146, not 148, sorry)

"Simply stated, this second series of reports is designed to point fingers in Washington and at the administration. The conclusions in the reports were crafted with more partisan bias than we have witnessed in a long time in Congress. "

Kind of sums it up, doesn' it?

[Mr Play]

we spend $9 per passenger on airline security.

Charge me $9 extra if it will make me twice as safe.
I'll pay the extra penny for riding the bus too - they can keep the change.

they do. that is what the charge per stop (believe it is $5/) tax on tickets is supposed to fund. Tho, if I do a round trip with 1 stop thru a hub, I get hit with (I believe $10) per run. Someone is making a profit on me...

I understand that. In theory what I'm saying is, tack on another $9 if necessary to improve security to acceptable levels. The people flying are the ones primarily at risk, unless the plane gets deliberately flown into a building or something. IMO they should carry the cost for added security measures, sort of like insurance.

Maybe someone has done some studies and the market can't bear an additional $9 pass-through charge, but I would tend to believe that it can.

[ph4ever]

servicemen and woman who are dying every day thanks to his rushing in to war.

Where do you people get this "rushing to war" line from. Oh yes democrat talking points. There were 17 UN Resolutions that led up to the rush to war. Each one was violated. Saddam was thumbing his nose to the entire world, he had gassed and executed his own citizens. We should have rushed to war there a lot sooner. We did rush to war in Afganistan with cause. I wonder how many lives might have been saved if we had rushed to war when Germany was exterminating millions.

Personally, I took the time to read this http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Didja read pg. 148 (last page of the document)? Kit Bond is a stand-up guy (yes, I've met him personally) who helped write these pages - I think you'll find the comments interesting... and perhaps inconvenient...

of course I read them however I also realize that these senate investigations can be filled with errors and misconceptions. Sometimes they tend to leave many questions unanswered.

From your response, I'm thinking perhaps you didn't read the whole document so closely as you claim...

To quote the relevant passage... (pg. 146, not 148, sorry)

"Simply stated, this second series of reports is designed to point fingers in Washington and at the administration. The conclusions in the reports were crafted with more partisan bias than we have witnessed in a long time in Congress. "

Kind of sums it up, doesn' it?

It does some it up - however I just am stating what my opinion and gut feeling were as I read the Senate Report. That's just my gut feeling right now about the whole thing. Nothing I can explain or debate.

[12vmanRick]

Everyone has a right to their opinion no matter how pathetic or wrong it is.

[RinglingRingling]

we spend $9 per passenger on airline security.

Charge me $9 extra if it will make me twice as safe.
I'll pay the extra penny for riding the bus too - they can keep the change.

they do. that is what the charge per stop (believe it is $5/) tax on tickets is supposed to fund. Tho, if I do a round trip with 1 stop thru a hub, I get hit with (I believe $10) per run. Someone is making a profit on me...

I understand that. In theory what I'm saying is, tack on another $9 if necessary to improve security to acceptable levels. The people flying are the ones primarily at risk, unless the plane gets deliberately flown into a building or something. IMO they should carry the cost for added security measures, sort of like insurance.

Maybe someone has done some studies and the market can't bear an additional $9 pass-through charge, but I would tend to believe that it can.

my guess would be that the funds are being collected, and some creative bookkeeping to allow siphoning off of the initial program funding is going on

[ragtopW]

Hey Flyboy... you feel singled out???

try hauling a c-pap into the security line..

[jonesbeach10]

servicemen and woman who are dying every day thanks to his rushing in to war.

Where do you people get this "rushing to war" line from. Oh yes democrat talking points. There were 17 UN Resolutions that led up to the rush to war. Each one was violated. Saddam was thumbing his nose to the entire world, he had gassed and executed his own citizens. We should have rushed to war there a lot sooner. We did rush to war in Afganistan with cause. I wonder how many lives might have been saved if we had rushed to war when Germany was exterminating millions.

But we didn't go into Iraq to save the Kurds. As cold as it sounds, Kurds being gassed didn't affect the way America runs. It wasn't in our national self-interest. What about Rwanda? I'm pretty sure we didn't rush there just to save people. Even today, you don't see us rushing into Sudan and the Darfur region. The fact of the matter is we went into Iraq because Saddam supposedly had the means to produce nuclear weapons, that he could potentially use against us. THAT would be in our national self-interest (aside from whether or not the intelligence was faulty).

We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban were harboring the people who were responsible for 9/11. THAT is in national self-interest.

And this is coming from a moderate democrat who thinks that going into Iraq was wrong, but believes that we shouldn't leave.

[Elrod]

Meanwhile, as a pilot in uniform I get singled out for special attention when I go through security checkpoints. We call it the "perp walk". Strip down, shoes off, belt open, etc. just to make sure I don't have anything on my person that I could use to hijack an airliner (other than my bare hands which rest firmly on the controls on a daily basis).

Are you suggesting that anyone wearing the uniform of a pilot or crewmember should not be subjected to the same screening as everyone else?

When that happens, everybody in line for screening will look like this:



Police investigating theft of American Airlines uniforms, key card

Whether the story is true or not, the idea is out there for a bad guy looking for ideas.

[flyboy55]

Meanwhile, as a pilot in uniform I get singled out for special attention when I go through security checkpoints. We call it the "perp walk". Strip down, shoes off, belt open, etc. just to make sure I don't have anything on my person that I could use to hijack an airliner (other than my bare hands which rest firmly on the controls on a daily basis).

Are you suggesting that anyone wearing the uniform of a pilot or crewmember should not be subjected to the same screening as everyone else?

When that happens, everybody in line for screening will look like this:



Police investigating theft of American Airlines uniforms, key card

Whether the story is true or not, the idea is out there for a bad guy looking for ideas.

Looks like my original groundschool class photo of many years ago. That's a very funny picture but I don't believe in this case "a picture is worth a thousand words".

Superficially, it might seem like a good idea to scrutinize aircrew even more closely than Joe and Jane Passenger.

But allow me to make the following points:

Passengers get to pass through airport security screening on the basis of their boarding pass alone. Showing any kind of personal ID is not required at security checkpoints.

I get to pass through airport security screening (when on duty AND in uniform) on the basis of my restricted area pass, which was issued to me by the Feds, based on an extensive investigation into my character, driving habits, possible past criminal misdeeds, every address I've lived at in the last ten years, whether or not I've accessed psychological counselling, among other particulars of my private life. This stuff, along with my fingerprints and photo are kept in a Fed database.

So consider this. Once an airport security screener has confirmed that I am indeed the person pictured on my pass and am using it legitimately, they have no recourse but to let me through. Further scrutiny of the kind that I am regularly subjected to is pointless. I don't need a concealed knife or nailclipper or even a sharp pointed stick to gain access to the cockpit and (heaven forbid) assume control of an airliner.

Am I more important than everyone else in line? Not at all, but every minute that screeners spend digging through my flight bag (it happens very frequently) looking for contraband that I might use to break into my own cockpit, or swabbing my laptop for explosives residue, is a minute that these same screeners can't spend scrutinizing the belongings of someone who simply presented them with a boarding pass and so these same screeners will fail to find that hidden ceramic knife (widely available) that didn't show up on the xray image.

Like I said, I wouldn't mind the extra scrutiny so much, if I didn't know about all the other less visible ways in which our Federal agencies are dropping the security ball on a daily basis mostly due to not having the money to do the job properly. The TSA doesn't have the money to do the job properly because our president and the Republican-controlled Congress don't want to give it to them.

I believe that if you were able to ask any of the multitude of fine people working on air travel security issues behind the scenes what they need most, they would all tell you the same thing - money for equipment, training and manpower. They don't have that money now thanks to the Bush administration.

[ragtopW]

Uh... last time I flew.. and the time before.. and before

I did not even get into the Checkpoint before I showed an ID.
and they call me by first name to gauge my reaction..
they might not ask for my ID at the checkpoint.
but before you get there you are IDed..

[SMLCHNG]

Passengers get to pass through airport security screening on the basis of their boarding pass alone. Showing any kind of personal ID is not required at security checkpoints.

The TSA doesn't have the money to do the job properly because our president and the Republican-controlled Congress don't want to give it to them.

I believe that if you were able to ask any of the multitude of fine people working on air travel security issues behind the scenes what they need most, they would all tell you the same thing - money for equipment, training and manpower. They don't have that money now thanks to the Bush administration.

On the flights I have taken in the last 5 years, I've had to show my ID as well as my boarding pass, etc.

Money is not always the answer to everyithing. Have you asked the fine people working on air travel security? So... there are no Democrats that have voted the way you want them to?

[Coconuts]

Uh... last time I flew.. and the time before.. and before

I did not even get into the Checkpoint before I showed an ID.
and they call me by first name to gauge my reaction..
they might not ask for my ID at the checkpoint.
but before you get there you are IDed..

But how many times have you used a boarding pass you printed from your computer? I have photoshop- it would be ridiculously easy to just make up a name and print one boarding pass in that name and then photoshop your real name (or whatever the name on the ID says) onto the other one- the ID people don't have any way to verify who you are- no computers, no access to a no-fly list, etc.

[harvest moon]

What a bunch of idiots. If you're not in the industry or don't travel on a frequent basis. Shut the hell up.

[SMLCHNG]

What a bunch of idiots. If you're not in the industry or don't travel on a frequent basis. Shut the hell up.

How profound. Perhaps you can add information to the conversation, rather than calling names to those who are discussing it.