Airports are NOT required to use TSA screeners!!

Very interesting and I did not know this until this morning. I have just accepted TSA as the common rule of thumb as it relates to airport drudgery. We have all been expected to just accept it.

Airports now have a choice.

Did you know that the nation's airports are not required to have Transportation Security Administration screeners checking passengers at security checkpoints? The 2001 law creating the TSA gave airports the right to opt out of the TSA program in favor of private screeners after a two-year period. Now, with the TSA engulfed in controversy and hated by millions of weary and sometimes humiliated travelers, Rep. John Mica, the Republican who will soon be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is reminding airports that they have a choice.

This could be good

Mica, one of the authors of the original TSA bill, has recently written to the heads of more than 150 airports nationwide suggesting they opt out of TSA screening. "When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy which was soon to grow to 67,000 employees," Mica writes. "As TSA has grown larger, more impersonal, and administratively top-heavy, I believe it is important that airports across the country consider utilizing the opt-out provision provided by law."

In addition to being large, impersonal, and top-heavy, what really worries critics is that the TSA has become dangerously ineffective...

This should get interesting in the weeks to come.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: www.washingtonexaminer.com...

reply to post by jibeho


Hmmm... So they can 'Opt out'. Funny. I wonder what sort of penalties they may face for taking that option though. It could be as simple as no longer being elligible for this or that Federal program, but still... One does wonder.

If there are no penalties, then maybe the pressure so many are proposing the general populace put on the airlines by boycotting may actually be effective.

I'm sure if you dig deep enough to see who benefits moneywise from the sale and use of these scanners, we won't be seeing any airport opt out of using them any time soon.

If anything i'd imagine they'll pass some bill making them compulsory.

CX.

reply to post by redhorse

I'm sure there is all kinds of federal funding airports receive when they opt-in for TSA screening. If they opt-out, then politics gets tough - all kinds of funding disappears, etc. That's how most power in this nation is maintained - by threatening loss of funding. No funding, no airport.

Not to mention, the FAA could be pressured to be heavier enforcers of expensive regulations that otherwise they turn a blind eye to. The EPA could dole out more fines for laws they otherwise penalize for less often.

I wonder, are there any airports out there that DO NOT have TSA?

Good feedback so far. I can envision some degree of retribution aimed at airports who may opt out of TSA. Plenty of pork barrel cash being spent at airports big and small. The airports may be getting extra lean pork as a result.

When you look at the numbers, it amazing how fast the TSA swelled into a monster bureaucracy.

Here is an interesting point from the article. This should also be viewed as a warning as to just how fast any new govt. agency can can become bloated and inefficient. Look out Obamacare bureaucracy.

Mica and other critics in Congress want to see quick and meaningful changes in the way TSA works. They go back to the days just after Sept. 11, when there was a hot debate about whether the new passenger-screening force would be federal employees, as most Democrats wanted, or private contractors, as most Republicans wanted. Democrats won and TSA has been growing ever since.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Originally posted by CX


If anything i'd imagine they'll pass some bill making them compulsory.

CX.

And there you have it.

-second line

Why would he suggest airports opt for less security than what they already have?

There are an infinite amount of places that DC can eliminate beauracracy before scaling back airport security...especially in the current climate.

If I was a real cynic I would say he was paving the way for another attack to further a political agenda.

If any airport chooses not to use the TSA due to his encouragement and there is a security breach at that airport and folks die, I will be calling for him to be publicly flogged and imprisoned..at the least.

this means that if you are coming from say, ireland, and the irish had opted out of the tsa's inhuman measures, then you could not get on an airplane destined to ANY airport that did not "opt out" of the extra measures. if u screen people flying from the united states, but dont screen them coming TO the united states, than the tsa has not done anything but make it more dificult to get on a plane in america and wouldnt stop a legitament terrorist plot, as it would be too easy to hijack a plane over the united states, rather than taking off from the united states. its asanin, and if all of the other countries go along with the screenings, we have already lost, and deserve the humiliation, but if enough other nations refuse these measures, the u.s. will be forced to scrap the idea, and work on the "next generation of security" either way, this seems to be a "tipping pint" in which we either become indoctrinated criminals in a police planet, or destroy their attempt to do this to the average american, or earth's other citizens. something needs to change, and i think its the thought that under the mask of the TSA anyone on their payroll can cop a feel of everyone who goes through the security checkpoint. the other issues are that if you decide not to go thrugh the grope-down (as they even do it after the naked body scans now) and try to leave, they will bring you to a private security room and do it anyway. this shows you that you have no choice but to comply, and is utter bs. a more sensative issue is that every image is saved. they can say all they want, its part of a failsafe that is "neccessary" in the event images have issues being transferred to the remote locations, such as internet troubles. the reason that i bring this up, is that they are required to "delete" every image from said scanners to prevent criminal charges, and are done by "mass-wipes" basicly clearing the hard-drive on the machine (most likely after they execute a "mass-save") the issue with this is that isnt child pornography a felony? and isnt the act of storing pictures of a naked child on any sort of hard-drive for viewing, or distribution purposes child pornography? but we are supposed to believe that these pictures which are first saved to the machine, then sent to a remote location are not being saved? welllllll even if thats so, one of the tsa's goons gets to look at your pictures of children, and think/say whatever they want about it. this should be considered child pornography on any scans under the age of eighteen. these are set up for abuse, and there is no oversight. this is purely rediculous
cell phones can cause brain cancer if kept within 3/4" of the skin and used regularly, but these x-rays are safe? children are more susceptable to radiation than an adult, but this doesnt stop parents from buying their twelve y/o (sometimes younger) child a cell-phone, or telling everyone its safe to let your children be subject to the backscatter xray which can make an image of the brain but isnt powerful enough to affect it on the cellular level?
they are storing your naked children on the machines hard-drive, then distributing it to a third party for review, and under federal law commiting the unforgivable act of using child pornography to make "terrorists" think twice before slipping a weapon/bomb/contraband on an airplane. maybe we are as stupid as the rest of the world thinks we are. somene needs to be sued over this. at least limit age of body scans to eighteen, if u are just going to grope them anyway.

The TSA has botched up a very effective screening technique most likely due to politics and undue influence.

For example, many security experts have urged TSA to adopt techniques, used with great success by the Israeli airline El Al, in which passengers are observed, profiled, and most importantly, questioned before boarding planes. So TSA created a program known as SPOT -- Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques. It began hiring what it called behavior detection officers, who would be trained to notice passengers who acted suspiciously. TSA now employs about 3,000 behavior detection officers, stationed at about 160 airports across the country.

The problem is, they're doing it all wrong. A recent Government Accountability Office study found that TSA "deployed SPOT nationwide without first validating the scientific basis for identifying suspicious passengers in an airport environment." They haven't settled on the standards needed to stop bad actors.

"It's not an Israeli model, it's a TSA, screwed-up model," says Mica. "It should actually be the person who's looking at the ticket and talking to the individual. Instead, they've hired people to stand around and observe, which is a bastardization of what should be done."

Perhaps if we can remove the politics from TSA they would be more effective! and we would not have this.

In a May 2010 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Mica noted that the GAO "discovered that since the program's inception, at least 17 known terrorists ... have flown on 24 different occasions, passing through security at eight SPOT airports." One of those known terrorists was Faisal Shahzad, who made it past SPOT monitors onto a Dubai-bound plane at New York's JFK International Airport not long after trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square. Federal agents nabbed him just before departure.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: www.washingtonexaminer.com...

reply to post by jibeho


Then shouldn't he be calling for a reform of the TSA?? Rather than eliminating it?

He is the Chair of the Transportation Committee...did you know that?

He also sits on the Committe of Oversight and Government Reform.

Does not a less than perfect airport security team protect passengers more than no security team?

I know he has been caught in the past taking contributions from Blackwater. Has he lined up some campaign contributer...and independant security contractor...to take over security for these airports?

What he is encouraging makes no sense.

reply to post by maybereal11


And in the meantime, Americans, "free" Americans, continue to be subjected to personal degradation.
Mothers are groped, wives are groped, daughters are groped, everybody's groped ! We are no longer "free".

TSA= Touch Still Another

Awhile back, we would have punched someone out for taking the kind of liberties TSA takes now. We are being
manipulated, because of terrorism.

What other rights and freedoms shall be taken away from us . . so you worry-warts can feel better ?

reply to post by maybereal11


He is not calling for the elimination of TSA. He would like swift changes made to their MO. Perhaps if enough airports opt out for a private contractor some effective changes will occur in TSA. TSA could start by properly reevaluating and implementing its SPOT program. Proper Profiling works and Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. A point apparently missed by the TSA.

Acording to the article, the federal government pays the cost of screening whether performed by the TSA or by private contractors, and contractors work under federal supervision. Nothing wrong with a little competition for the TSA eh?

Originally posted by SIEGE
reply to post by maybereal11

 

And in the meantime, Americans, "free" Americans, continue to be subjected to personal degradation.
Mothers are groped, wives are groped, daughters are groped, everybody's groped ! We are no longer "free".

TSA= Touch Still Another

Awhile back, we would have punched someone out for taking the kind of liberties TSA takes now. We are being
manipulated, because of terrorism.

What other rights and freedoms shall be taken away from us . . so you worry-warts can feel better ?

Yes...it's a government conspiracy...it was airport security officers who flew those planes into the WTC towers on 9-11...all with the end gaol of being able to feel up your mother without being punished.

C'mon...I know it sucks...we can certainly improve security, scanners do most of the work these days, but if you end up being felt up because something worried security...then I want you felt up before I get on a plane with you.

"Worry-warts"? How old are you? I find myself having to ask that question sometimes. Freshman in college these days were what?...8 years old when 9-11 happened?

I remember 9-11 vividly, moment by moment, minute by minute. If airport security needs to pat down your mom in order to make sure that doesn't happen again then they should. If you feel it is too much..then don't Fly. just my opinion.

FYI - I am typically called a communist/socialist/far left-liberal...so I believe in rights. I also belive in keeping us safe.

the Patriot act? That was an erosion of our rights. Getting felt up by airport security after the scanner goes off...that is life.

reply to post by jibeho


I don't trust private contractors. They will hire laid off TSA workers pay them less and bill them at twice the payrate the gov paid them. They will overcharge the gov and do the same or lessor job...and make "contributions' to folks like the Chair of The Transportation Committee (aka this moron who is telling airports to dump the TSA) who will funnel work thier way.

Just my opinion.

dp

reply to post by maybereal11


Now wait a minute ! Do I get to post the same message twice in a row too ?

If you don't give a rat's patoot that your mother or wife is getting felt up by some stranger that's your problem.
We all have our boiling points. Maybe yours is higher.

But some of us are mad as hell and we're "not" going to take it anymore !

(When I fly again, I'll call you to stand-in for the pat-down.)

If you're still scared from 911, you better watch out in the days ahead.

Originally posted by SIEGE

If you're still scared from 911, you better watch out in the days ahead.

Taking measures to prevent it happening again is not being "scared".

I don't live in a target area. I do however love my fellow Americans and have no desire to watch them on TV leaping from skyscrapers..choosing to plummet to thier death rather than burn to death....

The very fact that you view security measures as "scared" tells me that you maybe just graduated from the 7th grade?

reply to post by maybereal11


What did that last sentence of yours say ? In your mamby-pamby little world of being frightened all the time, it's
probably a good thing that you worry so much about security.

There's a difference between being aware and being paranoid.

There's also a difference between sheep and sheeple . . although at times subtle.

Those that suffer from rectal-cranial inversion should worry.

Originally posted by SIEGE
reply to post by maybereal11

 

What did that last sentence of yours say ?

I said that you seem to view the issue like a boy child trying to act tough.

Unless of course you actually are a child...which I am begining to suspect.

Someone who believes airport security is neccessary...is a "scared" "mamby-pamby"??

It is really a bizzare tact to take. I have this image of you standing in line at the airport mocking the security folks..."Bwaaawck, Bwaawck...what are you a scardy cat that someone is going to blow up the plane?!!
I double dog dare you to let me on the plane without being screened."

It's really crazy how some idiots view the world.

reply to post by maybereal11


You are so right about how different idiots view the world.

No one ever said that airport security wasn't necessary. Of course it is necessary . . . up to a point.

People like yourself view heightend security as an inevitable solution to today's crazy world.
( Even if it means giving up individual rights and freedoms.)
People like myself remember when flying was fun, and hassle-free.

Now we have to have increased security at airports because of terrorism. That's understandable.

But we, and I mean WE . . all of us . . . do not have to be treated as if we were the ones who flew the planes
into the Twin Towers. And it wasn't our mother that did it either, or our wives, or our daughters.
And now TSA can foddle us, and embarrass us . . . just because they think they have to ? BS !

How long will it be until until they make us strip and board the plane naked ? Whip us in line for even talking
about security ? Where does it end ?

Yes, I see myself standing in line . . . complaining . . because I still have a right to do so.