It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Background Checks Now Required for Hazmat Truck Drivers

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
As part of its Hazmat Threat Assessment Program, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) now requires the collection of biographical information and fingerprints from applicants who wish to obtain a new Hazardous Materials Endorsement (HME) on their state-issued Commercial Driver's License (CDL). This requirement became effective for new HME applicants on January 31, 2005. Individuals who wish to renew or transfer an existing HME may begin submitting biographical information and fingerprints with their HME application as early as March 31, 2005, but this information will be required as of May 31, 2005.

www.tsa.gov...

At first glance this may seem to be a good Ideal but is it taking away basic freedoms and rights from those who drive trucks? This is going to affect 2.5 million drivers who have no intention to become terrorist. The Ironic part of the whole thing is they couldn't even do it at the borders to keep the known bad guys out but we will do it to citizens. Also please look at the list of Disqualifying Crimes:
www.tsa.gov...

Keep in mind we have people in Congress that would not qualify to drive a truck. If these people are clean should we give them a chance to have a honest life working or fire them for past convictions? And if they are let go because of some petty crime or accuzation there of should they get paid by the government?




posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I don't know, man. That is an iffy one. I doubt I would let myself drive one of those trucks considering the damage they can do and some of the materials. I'd like to know those guys are really clean. As for people who can't quaify for stringent standards, I bet there is other stuff to haul that won't do as much damage if it finds itself spread all over the Interstate.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Yes, I feel the same way for the most part but when you hear that this is just the begining of what the Patriot Act is going to do I wonder how crazy it will get.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by factfinder38
As part of its Hazmat Threat Assessment Program, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) now requires the collection of biographical information and fingerprints from applicants who wish to obtain a new Hazardous Materials Endorsement (HME) on their state-issued Commercial Driver's License (CDL).


You mean there were no background checks before??!?


Lessee....
do I want an angry ex-con with a deathwish transporting a tanker of sulfuric acid or a big chunk of radioactive waste down the highways near my house?
Ummm, NO!!


from the site linked above
Under the rules governing the Hazmat Threat Assessment Program, an applicant will be disqualified from holding an HME if they:

* Have been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in a military or civilian court for any of the permanently disqualifying crimes;
* Have been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in a military or civilian court within the past seven years for a felony on the list of disqualifying crimes;
* Have been released from prison within the past five years for any of the disqualifying crimes;
* Are currently under want, warrant or indictment for a felony on the list of disqualifying crimes; or
* Have been declared mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.


I'm stunned that background checks weren't already in place.

[edit on 30-1-2005 by Banshee]



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Have been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in a military or civilian court for any of the permanently disqualifying crimes;
Have been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in a military or civilian court within the past seven years for a felony on the list of disqualifying crimes;
Have been released from prison within the past five years for any of the disqualifying crimes;
Are currently under want, warrant or indictment for a felony on the list of disqualifying crimes; or
Have been declared mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

or the lsit of Felonies...

Assault with intent to murder
Kidnapping or hostage taking
Rape or aggravated sexual abuse
Extortion
Robbery
Arson
Bribery
Smuggling
Immigration violations
RICO violations
Distribution of, possession with intent to distribute, or importation of a controlled substance ("simple possession" of a controlled substance without an intent to distribute is not considered disqualifying)
Dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation, including identity fraud (e.g., felony-level embezzlement, tax evasion, perjury, and false statements to the Federal government)
Unlawful possession, use, sale, manufacture, purchase, distribution, receipt, transfer, shipping, transporting, delivery, import, export of, or dealing in firearms or other weapons
Conspiracy or attempt to commit any of these crimes


So in other words. if I guy gets popped in a bar fight, resists arrest in College or gets caught with some pot, then he is may still go forward with his life and get the licnese. THis is accesptable. Read the fine print and I think it is a good idea.
Keeps crazy and/or violent offenders out of these jobs. Too bad they don't do the same for Public school teachers.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I don't see this as a big intrusion, but still it does take away some liberties. I was amazed, however, how much money is necessary to implement something that should be quite easy for the government to already do. Here is a quote from the Dayton Daily News on a local businessman cashing in on some of the Fed money trickling down for this stuff:




A former Dayton police officer landed a $75 million federal contract, enabling him to hire 60 people for jobs paying between $35,000 and $50,000 a year.

Charles Carroll, president of Integrated Biometrics Technology, is capitalizing on a rule of the Department of Homeland Security's Patriot Act that says all states must have a fingerprinting program in place by Jan. 31. Working with the Transportation Security Administration, 34 states and Washington, D.C., have asked Biometrics Technology to start its program that simplifies organizing fingerprints into a nationwide, FBI-linked database.

The Patriot Act requires truck drivers who carry hazardous materials to undergo an extensive background check, requiring drivers to send their fingerprints to the FBI database in Clarksburg, W.Va., to check for any criminal history. Carroll said seven of the 19 terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C., and rural Pennsylvania were certified to haul hazardous materials.

IBT's fingerprint network gives truck drivers the ability to complete the process fast enough to eliminate down time.

The company started five years ago when Carroll approached Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corp. with suggestions about making the fingerprinting technology, which had been limited to police investigations, available to more customers in a user-friendly format.

The 60 employees Carroll plans to hire, who will be a part of Biometrics Technology's call center, will work from space at ASET Corp., another of Carroll's companies near Dayton International Airport.

It specializes in violence prevention and other risks to the workplace.

Biometrics Technology was started in Dayton, but Carroll moved the company to Nashville, Tenn., two years ago.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but I don't see any freedoms or liberties being taken away from anyone. The list of offenses would disqualify somebody from many less dangerous jobs.

A trucker with a load of hazmat is potentially dangerous. I remember watching a show on TV recently that showed trucks with a small white dome on their roof. It held all kind of tracking and control circuitry. The home station could track the rig from source to destination, and was able to remotely disable the truck if need be.

You surely don't want to put these rigs in the hands of some shaky dudes, now do you?



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'm sorry, but I don't see any freedoms or liberties being taken away from anyone. The list of offenses would disqualify somebody from many less dangerous jobs.

You surely don't want to put these rigs in the hands of some shaky dudes, now do you?


It is called disenfranchisement. You automatically preclude someone from working because of past criminal history, regardless of if it were an honest mistake or if they have been rehabilitated. Of course criminals can always be politicians, they seem to get away with anything. And you are correct that a lot of trucks have satellite tracking. It wouldn't be hard to track the movements of one of these trucks unless the driver does something I always did- pull the fuse on the satellite reciever.

Seriously though, there is a much easier way of mass destruction which would worry me more and that is a terrorist who could put bio agents into our food at lets say McDonalds.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I guess that is one of my concerns ben91069 is McDonalds next then who ?
I do not want the bad guys hauling bad stuff but they do now and I am not sure we have had a real problem. I think the bigger problem is their IQ or lack of.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Good grief, they didnt check before?

Its about time they did in this day and age. I dont see anything peculiar or conspiracy-like on this one.

In Arizona, they do an extensive background check for any silly lowly position.
Whats the big deal? (see, i dont think EVERYTHING is a conspiracy)



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   

It is called disenfranchisement. You automatically preclude someone from working because of past criminal history, regardless of if it were an honest mistake or if they have been rehabilitated.

Actions have consequences. Otherwise why have consequences?



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Actions have consequences. Otherwise why have consequences?



If someone serves the time for the crime, and is released from prison. Haven't they paid the consequences?



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

It is called disenfranchisement. You automatically preclude someone from working because of past criminal history, regardless of if it were an honest mistake or if they have been rehabilitated.

Actions have consequences. Otherwise why have consequences?


Not always. And unfortunately most people do not meet the consequences they really deserve. That is why there is injustice and life is not fair. I am not saying that you can trust a felon, but you can't trust anyone for that matter, and if you look at the list they gave some of them seems to blanket other offenses that shouldn't really keep you from moving hazmat.

Rape or aggravated sexual abuse - I know rapists and sexual abusers are at the top of the list of someone who would be a terrorist right?

Extortion - Another crime that really doesn't profile a terrorist that well. The government extorts us all the time, but it is legal.

Bribery - I like to call this a form of lobbying, and again it happens all the time in US politics and these guys are making the rules.


Many of these I could comment on could go either way to say you could be linked to terrorist activity or it may not. The problem with these terrorism bills is they blanket just about anything to be a terrorist act.

While I agree in consequences, there should also be a form of reconciling your past if you can show some sort of rehabilitation.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Montana
If someone serves the time for the crime, and is released from prison. Haven't they paid the consequences?

Not necessarily. Prison time is only part of the price that criminals pay for their actions.

For example, if someone were convicted of pedophilia, s/he could not expect to be able to operate a day care center after getting out of prison.

Felons are not even allowed to vote in many states.

I'm not arguing for or against this. I'm just saying it the way it is.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join