Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Abolish the TSA, Save Lives

By Becky Akers, AlterNet. Posted August 17, 2006.


The Transportation Security Administration exists not to prevent terrorists from bringing down planes but to prevent passengers from realizing the government is powerless over such catastrophes.
081706story2
081706_story2

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Becky Akers

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The reports from London of a plot to smuggle explosives aboard planes and then combine them to murderous effect must have caused collective deja vu at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) last week. Only eight months ago, its screeners failed to detect the same scenario here in the United States.

Fortunately for passengers, it wasn't terrorists but government investigators who successfully smuggled bomb components through the TSA's checkpoints. Unfortunately, no screener has waved a magic wand since then to turn the TSA competent.

From October to December 2005, undercover investigators eerily presaged the London terrorists by trying to sneak components of an "improvised explosive device" through 21 American airports. Like London's liquids, these ingredients could have been assembled into a bomb once they were aboard the plane. As NBC's Nightly News lamented, "In all... airports tested, no machine, no swab, no screener anywhere stopped the bomb materials from getting through. Even when investigators deliberately triggered extra screening of bags, no one stopped these materials."

The TSA's response to this blatant blunder? "While random items commonly found under a kitchen sink could conceivably be concocted into an IED," it sniffed, "there are so many things that could go wrong with this hypothetical scenario that we find it highly implausible." Tell that to the alleged terrorists in London.

And to passengers stranded in four-hour lines so screeners could confiscate their toiletries and tea. Why? Aside from making travellers even more miserable than they already are, what was accomplished? Terrorists financed by Osama bin Laden first experimented with explosive elixirs 12 years ago in the hopes of blowing up planes, yet we've survived thousands of flights with liquids and gels since. Now the TSA wants us to believe that the mouthwash, mascara and medicines lying dormant in millions of carry-on bags have suddenly become lethal weapons. Toothpaste that posed no threat Tuesday was Public Enemy No. 1 Thursday, though uncounted tubes lurked in overhead bins this last decade.

The TSA has been a farce from its inception. It exists not to prevent terrorists from bringing down a plane but to prevent passengers from realizing the government can do little to thwart such a catastrophe. Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., was chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in May 2005 when he explained why the TSA squandered $4.5 billion on malfunctioning equipment; he also inadvertently admitted that the agency is merely window-dressing for the Feds: "After 9/11, we had to show how committed we were by spending hugely greater amounts of money than ever before, as rapidly as possible."

It worked. Forcing folks to remove their shoes and submit to pat-downs convinced many Americans that the TSA is an effective bureaucracy, unlike all others in their experience. When the TSA's Office of Strategic Management and Analysis commissioned a survey of passengers at 25 airports, it asked, "How confident are you in TSA's ability to keep air travel secure?" Eight-two percent were "fairly confident or very confident."

But according to the government's own investigations, that's about as reasonable as believing that Amelia Earhart still survives. The TSA routinely flunks tests of its efficacy, whether they're administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS is the bureaucratic parent of the TSA) or by other government agencies. Last year both the GAO and the DHS concluded that federalized screening doesn't protect passengers any better than private procedures did before 9/11.

That wasn't exactly news: Six months earlier, the DHS's acting inspector general warned Congress that "the ability of TSA screeners to stop prohibited items from being carried through the sterile areas of the airports fared no better than the performance of [private] screeners prior to Sept. 11, 2001." And the preceding year, the inspector general announced that, whether federal or private, screeners "performed about the same, which is to say, equally poorly." That prompted the chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee, John Mica, R-Fla., to lament, "We have a system that doesn't work." Worse, it costs taxpayers almost $17 million per day and endless aggravation.

Politicians and pundits are cynically using London's scare to call for more stringent searches by the TSA. They insist our safety depends on enduring whatever abuse screeners throw at us. But x-raying shoes simply because the TSA doesn't know what else to do won't improve security, and giving the agency even more power makes as much sense as demanding bigger portions at a bad restaurant.

Let's admit that the TSA is a colossal goof and abolish it. We'll not only save ourselves time, money and frustration, we may even save some lives.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Better Screening + Good Intelligence = Safe Skies.
Posted by: MTreich on Aug 17, 2006 1:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is clear the UK terrorist plot would have bypassed airport security.

We were saved this time because of domestic wire tapping, intensive interrogation and good old fashion detective work.

If we want to be safe we need to increase screening in airports. This means profiling Muslims (not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims, well 99.9999%) and giving them extra screening plus buying better scanning machines. Second, we need good intelligence like the type which foiled the UK plot, especially domestic wire tapping.

Combining the two will keep us safer. Total safety will never occur as long as the Muslim terrorist animals want to destroy western civilization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Polizeistaaten USA!
Posted by: clayrains on Aug 17, 2006 3:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, we need better screening all around... agreed. With this recent threat of liquid explosives it's a good idea that we're banning bottled water and the like as carry-on items. But it does NO GOOD AT ALL that we're banning all liquids except for breast milk and formula. Now the terrorists will just put their liquid explosives in formula bottles!

Heck, you know that's the next big threat is people bringing babies packed with explosives. It'd really be best to just ban all carry-on babies and put them on cages in the cargo holds or to be even safer, we could just put all toddlers on a national no-fly list. There's no dire end for a 6-month-old to travel anyway. At the very least, we should do a full body cavity search on babies, especially if they're Muslim babies.

Wiretap everyone and don't stop at spying, or rather monitoring, everyone' emails. We need more funding for cameras in every car and home. ANd most of all, everybody needs to be chipped. Then we'll all be safe! Let freedom ring! God bless 'merica!

And domestic wiretapping is great, but let's not limit it to Muslims. Those evil Muslims could just offer a huge some of money to white Americans to aid them in their terrorist operations. It's already becoming evident that we may have a huge problem with homegrown terrorists, especially with the increasing number of wackos that are abetting Muslim terrorists by raising questions about 9/11 and their conspiracy theories.

You know, the kind of folks that ask why WTC Building 7 fell when it wasn't hit by a plane, why many federal officials were warned not to fly on 9/11 and why many FBI agents were told not to investigate the 9/11 hijackers or they'd be put in jail by their superiors. And the most outrageous statement these conspiracy wackos all make... that we're under a POLICE STATE. How absurd?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

most effective terrorists
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 17, 2006 3:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The most effective terrorists in the world are the mass-murdering USA bombers who have killed more innocent people than all of the other terrorists in the entire world combined. The Bushies "war on terror" is just a propaganda gimmick to get Americans to accept a whole series of illegal acts while the perps keep on stealing election after election while getting USA soldiers killed in ineffective occupations. Bring the troops home and impeach the lying propagandizing crooks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Short, consise and well said. Posted by: jreinhart1
» RE: most effective terrorists Posted by: yellowduc
True
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Aug 17, 2006 5:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"After 9/11, we had to show how committed we were by spending hugely greater amounts of money than ever before, as rapidly as possible."

The last I heard they were going to spend $7 billion more over the next few years. What is worse they had no Plan B and didn't want one. The bureacracy wouldn't consider any plan other than spending huge sums of money on "improving " the work force or on inventing new technology,

About a month after 9/11 I had an idea to improve carryon luggage inspection. The government had asked for suggestions so I submitted it through a web site that they had for that purpose. I got a form e-mail thanking me for the suggestion but that was all. It was an idea that could have been implemented in a test site in a matter of days. It required no retraining or change of personnel and no new equipment. I calculated that the whole system would cost about 1/2 cent per ticket. I reasoned that any idea that could be tested so easily was worth trying. Especially since it might save thousnds of lives.

After a while I figured that they weren't interested in free advice so I tried to sell it to The Department of Transportation for a royalty of 1/2 cent per ticket. I wrote to different branches that I thought might be in charge of this phase. I must have written a dozen letters. This didn't work either. So I wrote to my Congressmen and got a form thank you letter. I also wrote to the appropriate air safety committees in the Senate and the House of Representatives to no avail.

Every time I wrote I explained to whomever I wrote to that they were attacking the problem from the wrong angle. At that time the approach was to pay inspectors more and thus get more competent people. I told everyone that the answer wasn't to change the people but to change the job. Baggage inspection is a boring job it is impossible for any person to pay attention to it day after day. My solution would have made the job interesting. All of this fell on deaf ears so after a couple of years, even though I fly occasionally and risk my life to terrorists, I gave up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sexual Abuse (and other offenses) by TSA
Posted by: terradea on Aug 17, 2006 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I filed a complaint against TSA in July of 2003 after being molested by a TSA staff member at Midway Airport in Chicago. She made me spread my legs, then "wanded" me between my legs, forcing the wand to touch my labia, all while two male TSA staff members watched and laughed. I just received a letter THIS WEEK (three years later) telling me that the investigation of the incident turned up nothing.

I rented a room to a TSA agent last year. She moved out after refusing to pay her bills. I tried to contact her at work in order to obtain a new address so that I could send her a bill; I was warned that if I didn't stop "harrassing" her, the government would make sure I stopped.

TSA agents have NO EDUCATION and are nothing more than losers with barely a high school education who suddenly have power to control people and will not hesistate to abuse this power as our government looks on with approval and support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Shut and do as you are told"
Posted by: bornxeyed on Aug 17, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is what one TSA drone said to me after I questioned why I was being harrassed for standing on the wrong footprints in front of a metal detector last year.

Blaring from the public address system was a message stating that "making jokes about the inspection process is a federal offense punishable by imprisonment."

"Only in Amerika" I proclaimed. Luckily, I wasn't charged with a crime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TSA better at checkpoints, not really, better with baggage, yes!
Posted by: LOfstedal on Aug 17, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I worked as a checkpoint and checked baggage screener for 2 and a half years at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. Screening at the checkpoints was not improved over private screening and the management consisted of prior airline employees (conflict of interest? yes!); however, we spent millions of dollars on advanced x-ray/CT baggage scanners and all checked baggage was screened. Pre 9-11, only select checked baggage was screened, so I truly feel the TSA has improved security with regard to checked baggage. One other comment: as an insider, I can confirm that the TSA is mostly about making people "feel" safer than it is about actually making them safer. (Why? Because the airlines are a huge part of our economy -- and the government was trying to prevent an economic downturn...yeah, that worked, didn't it? Ha!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the stupidest idea I've ever heard of.
Posted by: jlohman on Aug 17, 2006 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the very least it serves as a deterrent and it also forces terrorists to jump through loops that can be detected.

Sorry folks, call it what you want, but we damned well better reinstitute profiling at the airports. Experts say it is easier to search for suspicious people than for suspicious materials, and I believe them.

I sort of like the idea of having two planes competing on the basis of whether they were "politically correct" versus "overly protective." I know the arguments, but I'll be on the latter flight and at my destination before the former finds a willing flight crew.

I'd also like to see all carry-on cell phones checked at security and kept in the baggage compartment until arrival. Pick them up as you depart the plane. Key fobs and garage door openers will also face scrutiny.

And now, our infamous ACLU is suing Boston Logan airport for singling out passengers that "look suspicious." Good for you Boston, let the ACLU prove that "suspicious looking" is now a protected category.

I keep hearing that we are lacking the financial resources to develop new bomb detection technologies and hire enough security personnel, and I wonder how much smarter it would have been for Bush to forego the tax cuts to the wealthy, who didn't need the cuts in the first place, and instead spend that money on R&D for detecting bombs and providing underbelly laser systems to block incoming missiles from shoulder fired weapons. This was not a good time to drain government revenues, but that's what Bush's contributors demanded.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just don't fly anymore
Posted by: antiapathy on Aug 17, 2006 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. the TSA has made the experience so damn unpleasant that it's just not worth it anymore.

2. the TSA is so damn incompetent that I don't feel safe. If the terrorists are desperate enough, they can probably find a way to get something harmful onto the plane.

we just cannot stop people who want to do bad things from doing them. the only chance we have at getting back to a somewhat regular society is to stop doing the things that make them hate us so much (occupation of iraq, support of repressive regimes in saudi arabia and israel, etc.). Of course that is too much to ask, so I guess I'll never bother flying in an unsafe airplane again...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I just don't fly anymore Posted by: hotlipsin61
» RE: I just don't fly anymore Posted by: joe2171
Just Hired by TSA
Posted by: mstenger on Aug 17, 2006 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just accepted a job with TSA as a transportation security officer (TSO--screener). The application process was rigorous. I have a bachelor's degree and am employed elsewhere full-time. I will be working for TSA part-time.

I am not a "loser" as a previous poster said. I applied for the job primarily because I need the extra money to pay off credit cards, but I also took the job with the intent of public service--believe it or not!

Since I haven't started yet, I don't really know what I'm in for, but it is my intent to help make air travel safer. So, please remember that all TSO's aren't "drones." I, too, agree that DHS needs improvement, but it's the best we've got for now. Doing away with TSA is not the answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just Hired by TSA Posted by: AmyB
» RE: Just Hired by TSA Posted by: LOfstedal
» RE: Just Hired by TSA Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: illiterate minority colleagues Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net
» RE: Just Hired by TSA Posted by: joe2171
If terrorism was real, there would be no end in creative ways of destruction.
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Aug 17, 2006 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time to get real here. Terrorists that are willing to give up their lives would have created a mass hysteria in this country that is infinitely greater than what has happened so far. The combination of binary substances that could be used to ignite oil reserves, fuel tanks and tankers, natural gas depots, gas lines, destroy shipping yard cranes... is infinite. There are simple combinations of water and metals, powders and gases that could send up nearly any of the above mentioned facilities and it would take only a backpack to store the necessary items. Extremely hazardous chemical storage tanks, power facilities and power grid stations could kill thousands and leave us in the dark for days on end.

This doesn't even include terrorists with small arms attacking malls, buildings ... accross the US. Imagine a Christmas season where everyone is to scared to go out and purchase items!

I don't buy any of the BS of today's terrorism for just these reasons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Skeptic's View of the Alleged Terror Plot
Posted by: LuisaO on Aug 17, 2006 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before buying into the Bush and Blair Administration's carefully crafted presentation of this alleged terror plot, take a step back and read some skeptical views. Here's the best I've seen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Maybe the tide is turning ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
TSA = a waste of time and money
Posted by: lianne on Aug 17, 2006 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just yesterday, CBC radio was interviewing an expert pointing out how futile it is to target the tactics, since every time we block one, they find a new one. All the latest round of restrictions does is inconvenience the innocent.

After all, did screening stop the british plot? No! Field investigators tracking the group did. But the more money spent on new screening techniques, the less there is to spend on hiring new field agents who are the ones who really will stop plots.

That doesn't mean there should be *no* screening. But come on, confiscating water bottles (when experts say that on longer flights you should drink lots of fluids!) is just a waste of time, designed only to simultaneously scare people and reassure them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jars of jam a possible threat
Posted by: badkitty on Aug 17, 2006 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe the correct response to 9/11 would have been to turn the investigation over to police (Interpol?) if we had really wanted to catch Bin Laden. I used to think screening possessions might be a good idea, but I flew for the first time in three years last month, and in my checked luggage (all my luggage is checked) I had two jars of apricot jam that I made while visiting my best friend. Guess what got opened!

My husband flies a lot, and his favorite story is how he keeps a little pill bottle full of baking soda in his repair kit. Gosh, some TSA agent took this bottle full of a white powder. We hope that a snort of that baking soda felt good!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A baggie with screws it it Posted by: Bic Pentameter
Truth + compassion = no terrorism to begin with
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on Aug 17, 2006 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only good Indian is a dead Palestinian, and it is our manifest destiny to occupy this great land and rid it of the savage heathens which now infest it.

They aren't real humans, and even if they are, we'll call it a sensitive issue and refuse to address it until the killing is done and all interested parties are long since dead and forgotten. We'll take our time to act in Darfur, because there is money to be made or alliances to forge.

If there is nothing of value where a primitive people live we will withhold exposure to lifesaving practices so we can study their culture to our curiosity's content. But if there is even so much as a convenient shortcut through your ancestral homelands, you are doomed. We'll twist every fact and make it look like we're doing some great thing, but in the end we'll have it and you'll be a memory.

If you resist, we'll call you terrorists because we've worn out the rubrics of heathen, savage, and backward civilization. We'll make scapegoats out of you, one way or another, and scare our public with tales of horror. They'll clamour for our protection against you and we will be obliged to eradicate your culture for their safety.

My own mother looks out the window for Hamas terrorists. Another local idiot with 5 kids kept a loaded shotgun leaning against his door frame after the WTC truck bomb in the underground parking area. Works great, the world is ours - why quit and play fair if we don't have to. We'll only give up our comforts kicking and screaming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The TSA keeps us in line
Posted by: Gillian-B on Aug 17, 2006 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it, the way passengers are treated at airports has little to do with safety and more to do with showing us who's in charge. They are making sheeple out of us.

Do 80 year-old grandmothers in wheelchairs really have to take off their space shoes to keep us all safe? My aunt sat there and let them take them off and put them on again! Then she continued on her way to visit her grandchildren in Oklahoma. Surely someone in line breathed a sigh of relief.

When I flew and asked to have a chair in order to remove my "ballerina" flats, I was given "the complete treatment" including a pat-down. When the female screener came to my breasts, I said No! At that point a male supervisor was called, followed by 2 local police officers. I was told I had to comply or leave the airport. It was completely up to me whether I fly or not! And if I continued with my loud talking and abrasive attitude, I would be escorted out of the terminal by the nice boys in blue.

The screener then said that if I wished, the patdown could be continued in a private area. I agreed, thinking that I had gone far enough in making my point and I did have a plane to catch. I was escorted behind a curtain where two TSA employees (a woman and a man) sat at computer screens. The man was asked to leave. The woman remained, and the screener "finished her job" all the time explaining that she had "orders."

On another occasion, I sat up on the table to remove my shoes (with laces) because there still was no chair available. It should be noted that there are plenty of chairs on "the other side" so you can put your shoes back on. And, I have noticed that some airports do indeed have a chair reachable on the near side. In fact, last year screeners in some ports were actually using judgment in deciding if removal was necessary after visual inspection. No doubt those days are gone.

In short, our are bags X-rayed, we are poked, prodded and screened, herded into too small seats to make us docile in flight, and to remind us that we are helpless in the air and at the mercy of the government and its minions.

And, today we are no safer than we were on September 10th, 2001. No more at risk either. Just more willing to put up with whatever indignities and injustices the government throws at us in the name of National Security. It's all BS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

libertarian nutjobs unite!
Posted by: Erik1968 on Aug 17, 2006 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't libertarians have their own website for rants against the government? A quick search reveals the author of this piece to be one of your classic anti-government nuts.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/akers/akers-arch.html

(And check out lewrockwell.com while you're there. Good times!)

She refers to the government as "Leviathan" almost exclusively, and she has lots of criticism for government handouts of "our" tax dollars for wasteful stuff like Katrina relief.

I thought it was a bit odd that Ms. Akers didn't suggest what we replace TSA with; I assume she'd like to return to the Bad Old Days of pre-9/11 when airport security was done by private contractors instead of federal employees.

I can never figure out why libertarians have no problem whan businessmen attack our rights, but they hate it when the government does.

As long as TSA takes care of the snakes I'll be happy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: libertarian nutjobs unite! Posted by: bornxeyed
» Snake threat level Posted by: doctorsquared
A Bizarre Ritual
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Aug 17, 2006 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are some good points made in this post about the TSA, and let's face it folks. We're not safe anywhere anymore, especially when we travel. No matter what the "White Shirts" do, remove our shoes, ban hygienical products, bottled liquids, etc., someone will attempt to cause harm to others.
"Security" is a bizarre ritual played out in the theater at airports. It doesn't surprise me that when you go to a stadium you're screened, searched, probed, wands shoved between your legs, etc. It goes on ad infinitum. Haven't you all had enough of this? Heck, we always have to have our guard up, afraid to lower our arms even while at rest. This is a mental health issue.
In the so-called "war" on "terror", racial profiling is wrong at best. We cannot accurately say X (Muslims) is associated with Y (terrorism), and this type of attitude could lead to lawsuits. Just imagine if the Unabomber wasn't White.
The average citizen isn't trained to be a federal agent to handle this kind of law enforcement. So let's leave our Muslim brothers and sisters alone. We're turning paranoid because someone looks different. It's like that "Twilight Zone" episode where aliens land on Maple Street, make machines act unpredictably and residents freak out and attack each other.
No one knows if the TSA is effective or not, but the TSA appears to be another tool in controlling human behavior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

we've played right into their hands...
Posted by: hayseed on Aug 17, 2006 2:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the whole point of terrorism to make people scared and distrust each other. i, for one, don't give a rats ass what terrorists do, because i'm just as likely to be killed in a drive-by, hit by a car, catch avaian flu, or any number of things as i am to get blown up by terrorists with liquid explosives, which i think is a lie anyway.
if you really want to be safer, you'll stop listening to the authorities and go about your business, not worrying if you're gonna get blasted, because if its gonna happen there's nothing you can do to stop it. when your time is up, your time is up, period. TSA, DHS, our honorable and vigilant service members, not even Capt. America can stop any of us from dying. and to tell the truth i would rather get blown up than die from cancer while my depends are getting changed. live life to fullest, no fear. much love and peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TSA=slack-jawed idiots for the most part.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Aug 17, 2006 2:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love flying back into the USA from Europe and seeing the awful security in the USA. I'm greeted by some slack-jawed person who couldn't get a job at McDonald's. They are always talking to the female TSA employees and don't even seem to pay attention to the screen or the people. Then you got the foot-fetish guys who insist on examining our shoes. There are some good ones, I guess, but we really scrape the bottom of the barrel for the majority of the TSA employess. Compare it to the Dutch or German screeners. They ask good questions. Pull everyone out of line to ask the questions. Many times several people on one person. The USA TSA are busy listening to rap music and starring with a gaped mouth at the crowded line which has piled up due to their incompentence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Would You Use Instead?
Posted by: sofla100 on Aug 17, 2006 3:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, the TSA seems like it's really more of an illusion of security than a reality. But, then it should be upgraded. If you dismantle it, what do you use then? Before, it was private companies, and they were even worse then TSA. They would hire at the cheap end and use ex-cons, drug felons with hidden records, whatever necessary to make a buck off the government. TSA is at least a hope of improvement unless your alternative is nothing at all. If TSA is not working now, it needs better management, better standards and quite possibly, more money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Would You Use Instead? Posted by: LOfstedal
» RE: What Would You Use Instead? Posted by: LOfstedal
No Dippity-Do? I dippity-don't!
Posted by: cthelyt on Aug 17, 2006 8:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think about this. For the past 230 years or so, men (and a good number of women) have sacrificed their safety and security--i.e., died--for our freedoms. And now we line up so shamelessly and senselessly to surrender those hard-won freedoms for an illusory sense of security. Who's winning in this? The government, of course. All those fools who died for the US to exist and stay free may as well have stayed home and done the hoeing and mowing.

Someone may say, "If you want to die for freedom, enlist in the military." Yeah, let someone else do the sacrificing and dying for me. What a cop-out. And that's a citizen? I bet he/she wants to deport all the illegals. I say, keep the illegals because they risked more to get here than you ever did or will. You're a disgrace, and part of the reason we're in the mess we're in in this country.

As the freepers love to say, freedom isn't free. I for one, not a freeper nor wishing to become one, do not want to see the day when 60-year-old women gladly fly naked and handcuffed after running through water-spray jetways en route to their seats. Polyester may someday combine well with plastic explosives and be woven into clothing that could be detonated with--who knows, two toy magnets rubbed together. At what point will those who cry "Anything in the name of security is fine with me. Freedoms? Who cares about freedoms when I'm dead? Take my freedoms away, sir, please!"--at what point will these ninnies finally stand up and say Enough!?

My bet is that it will be too late by then, that they will have succeeded in bullying the minority of their fellow citizens who, like myself, have already had more than enough of this so-called security BS shoved down their throats. It is totally useless, a waste of time and money, the terrorists know how to bypass it already, and all those sweet elderly ladies whom I enjoy sitting beside ought to know better. You know who you are. Are you going to see your grandkids, or are you red-hot mommas laden with ball bearings and keeping a date with Paradise?

If the America that is taking shape now comes into full form, I will gladly consent to be blown up by a terrorist rather than remain living in a land of lily-livered, weak-kneed, spineless cowards who don't have the guts to risk their lives to save freedoms not just for themselves and their loved ones but also for people they will never know.

For heaven's sake, it's a sad day in the USA when anyone has to write such things. What has happened to sacrifice for others and for ideals? Tear up the Bill of Rights and blow me up on the next plane, please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What terrorists?
Posted by: wwittman on Aug 17, 2006 11:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the "UK Terrorists" had no plane tickets, no explosive materials or the means of maiking them, and only a highly questionable interest in doing so.

there's really not much evidence, if any, that they are or intended to be "terrorists" at all.

The British government had them under surveillance for almost a year. It was, naturally, the Bush administration who pushed for the arrests this week (allegedly because of highly suspect 'tips' from Pakistan)

so it didn't take the TSA to "foil" this imaginary "terrorist" attack.

But LIKE the TSA, this was all about keeping the public duly scared.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What terrorists? Posted by: joe2171
TSA a Few Good, a lot of Bad
Posted by: llsee on Aug 18, 2006 12:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I spent 18 unhappy months working for TSA between 2002 and 2004. While there were a good number of smart intelligent people who truly wanted to do a good job, it took very little time for the disillusion to set in. At the airport where I was assigned, TSA management was much more worried about how you were dressed rather than the procedures of screening. We rarely saw management, they stayed in their plush offices over a mile away from the airport and rarely visited. We had a constant problem scheduling an appropriate number of staff for the passenger load. We were chronically understaffed on busy days, and over staffed on slow days. When I had the opportunity to ask a manager about why we couldn't get staffing right, he replied "we don't know how many passengers to expect!" When I explained that the airlines spend millions on load management software, and have a pretty good idea what their load will be months in advance, he snapped "We're in charge here! The airlines don't tell us what to do!"

Screeners were not respected by management and there was no attempt to solicit staff feedback. Absenteeism and job related injuries were at epidemic proportions. Since we were not civil service employees, and were not able to transfer to civil service positions. Morale was so low it was off the charts. In 18 months I saw most of the good people that I respected leave. While I personally never saw any theft or outright harrasment, I would not be surprised to hear that it happened. After all, TSA employees were just like the population at large. There were good people, bad people, and people who didn't care. And, there was an indifferent management who couldn't tell the difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

knit-wit
Posted by: knit-wit on Aug 19, 2006 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No. No. No. Don't ABOLISH the TSA. Make it BIGGER; make it more and more and more POWERFUL. Terror is everywhere; under here and inside there.

You can never be TOO careful.

If we want the PRIVILEDGE of flying, for our own safety let the TSA strip us naked and strap out mitted hands behind our backs. Let our mouths be gagged and our heads covered with black sacks. Let our orifices be probed and our thoughts be scrutinized with the aid of electricity and german shepards. Let us be strapped to wooden tablets and submerged until we admit the plots of which we are willing participants.

Because you can never be SAFE enough.

Let us be punched and urinated on. Let us prostrate ourselves before the almighty, all-protecting Man.

Because you can never, ever, have enough SECURITY.

Do not ridicule the heroic efforts of those who have "orders" and are "only doing their job," because your inconvenience and discomfort can always get worse. Think BIG not small. Altruism demands such obedience.

Let our conversations be monitored and our finances be reviewed in real time. Do not question the wisdom of this because only the GUILTY would object to it.

Because you can never be TOO thorough.

Indeed, let us have cameras in our bedrooms and microchips implanted in our heads. Let us line up and in regiments and be counted and counted and counted. Above all else, let us submit joyfully to having that boot stamping on our faces -- forever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: knit-wit Posted by: joe2171
greg palast
Posted by: rwa on Aug 19, 2006 7:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today's a RED and ORANGE ALERT day. How odd. They just caught the British guys with the chemistry sets. But when these guys were about to blow up airliners, the USA was on YELLOW alert. That's a "lowered" threat notice.

According to the press office from the Department of Homeland Security, lowered-threat Yellow means that there were no special inspections of passengers or cargo. Isn't it nice of Mr. Bush to alert Osama when half our security forces are given the day off? Hmm. I asked an Israeli security expert why his nation doesn't use these pretty color codes.

He asked me if, when I woke up, I checked the day's terror color.

"I can't say I ever have. I mean, who would?"

He smiled. "The terrorists."

America is the only nation on the planet that kindly informs bombers, hijackers and berserkers the days on which they won't be monitored. You've got to get up pretty early in the morning to get a jump on George Bush's team.

There are three possible explanations for the Administration's publishing a good-day-for-bombing color guidebook.

1. God is on Osama's side.

2. George is on Osama's side.

3. Fear sells better than sex.

A gold star if you picked #3.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, I feel safer . ..
Posted by: davidh on Aug 20, 2006 1:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually I feel at least a little safer when I read postings like these and am reminded that not everyone in the US is nuts.

I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but just to add or repeat a few items:
--The only real safety will come from having a just and peaceful world. Bush's policies are making things more dangerous
--"Homeland Security', TSA, etc, are public relations stunts to make people FEEL safer and THINK that the Bushies are protecting them. Any real safety they provide is coincidental. Does anyone remember how the Republicans used to demand "cost:benefit" analyses of every public safety proposal? Like when they decided it was "too expensive" to raise the limits on arsenic in drinking water versus the number of lives it would save? Anyone care to do a similar analysis of the TSA budget?
--I'm not a big Hillary fan these days, but she was the only one I noticed who said something sensible after 9/11: That "security" money should be spent on things that improve our daily lives and the economy, like more hospitals, first responders, communications systems, etc -- not on things that make our lives worse, hurt the economy, and limit our liberties.
--Which leads to the obvious point that Bush's response to 9/11 has hurt the US -- economically, strategically, and even in number of USers killed and injured -- much more than the actual attack did, thus playing directly into Osama's game plan. Fifty years from now 9/11 will be seen as the most effective (and low cost) military action in human history: 19 dead versus screwing up the most powerful nation on earth, driving it into decades of debt and decisively weakening it strategically.
--On screening vs targetting: Well, I'm against racial profiling as in "driving while Black" On the other hand, it's crazy to take nail clippers away from Iowa grandmothers just because you want to treat everyone equally. When I flew to Israel on El Al they knew exactly who everyone on that plane was and they didn't need to search me. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm damned sure that current screening is not the answer. Someone trained in martial arts can kill people and take over a plane without special equipment. And how are they going to screen for when bid Laden buys airline tix for a couple hundred people with drug-resistant TB (which would cause an uncontrollable epidemic months later)? Or flies a bunch of guys to Kansas with hoof and mouth disease on their boots?
--OK, I'll lighten up: I never understood why people got scared to fly after 9/11. After all, lots more people got killed on their jobs than in the air. It would be more rational to be scared to go to work. (Actually you stand a much better chance of getting killed driving, or crossing the street -- or struck by lightening -- than of being killed on a plane by terrorists.) You really want to save lives? Cut the speed limit to 55 and have the govt pay for all childhood vaccinations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well, I feel safer . .. Posted by: joe2171
Good words
Posted by: Burton on Aug 23, 2006 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not normally agree with many of the articles posted on Alternet, but this one makes sense. I'm getting really, really annoyed with TSA procedures that make it feel as if you are checking into county jail when trying to get on an airplane.

On more than one occasion I have asked TSA guards if they know what the Fourth Amendment is. They have not a clue!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good words Posted by: joe2171