The man who created the TSA says it has failed, has never detected a threat, and it is time to dismantle it.

Haha:

It was a lack of regulation and rules for security that allowed 9-11 to happen. Do I need to remind you that the 9-11 hijackers set off metal detectors and were still let on the planes? Had there been any national rules at all for air travel safety, there would have been no 9-11.

While I whole-heartedly agree that this Republican-founded program should end in it's current form, there was a reason it was formed in the first place, and that reason isn't going to magically dematerialize. Metal detectors were effective on 9-11. The problem was that no one was forcing the airlines to actually act when they detected something.

Have some actual rules(like that you're supposed to actually FIND what set off the metal detector before letting the guy on a plane), make sure they're enforced unilaterally across the country, and you'll have relatively safe, effective airport security without the need for intrusion.

I think everyone missed this post so I'm going to re-emphasize it.

Thank you so much for that mental image. I had to laugh.

I saw it. Based on a lot of the comments I've seen, I'm surprised that opponents of it are not more vocal, although maybe the internet is not indicative of real-world sentiment about the program.

And I agree, but the problems and conditions that led to it's creation are still going to exist, and still have to be dealt with; they aren't just going to go away. That's basic logic.

They have been, i.e. hijackers can't get into the cockpit anymore, and passengers know not to sit around idly during a hijacking anymore. In the past air travelers were told to assume it was a hostage situation and that they were more likely to be hurt if they fought than if they waited to be rescued. Now they are worried about being exploded or flown into a building, so they'll put up a bigger fuss.

You will NEVER be able to prevent weapons or dangerous chemicals from getting onto a plane.

Maybe I'm mistaken here, but is that not something the TSA mandated?

I also think it's an insanely bad idea to assume every flight is gonna be filled with cowboys and commandos. Putting an Air Marshal or two on every flight would work, but relying entirely on the passengers themselves to retake a plane from trained terrorists is ludicrous.



That simply isn't true. You can't prevent all weapons from getting on a plane, sure, but you can prevent some or most. As I said before, the 9-11 hijackers were detected by metal detectors. There just wasn't any rule that said the airlines actually had to do anything about it. All we need are those rules, and to enforce them. Bomb sniffers can add an extra layer of security without any intrusion and without really slowing anything down, so why not use them as well?

Full-body scanners may eventually take the place of both of these, but that's waaaay far in the future after the technology actually works.

Sadly, the technology may never be proven in an equally long future. The hijackers will just travel to an airport where there are no high tech scanners; convenient or not. It's sad. It will take a really stupid hijacker to walk through an equipped airport with a bomb or gun, because then, those things will be installed like wildfire.

In order for these to became mandated, they need to be done so by the lawmakers on their own and not as a result of tragedy.

The US doesn't receive planes from foreign airports deemed dangerously insecure. And it would have to be a pretty small or insignificant airport if one were to not have that security. Certainly not an airport with any sizeable planes.

That's not what I'm talking about. We are currently talking about those fully body scanners (are we not?). Any airport will have security, but those with weaker security (i.e. those without body scanners) will be the location hijackers go through to hijack our airspace, whether it's in their city or two states away.

Unless by "that security" you are talking about the body scanners as well...?

Yayyy! I get to go through the scanners tomorrow!

I'd rather go through scanners than get intimately "frisked" in a private room.

I've already had multiple CAT scans and X-Rays. I'd rather avoid more radiation if possible.

Hey my dad had that done! Had a hand up his @$$ and everything. But we had a good white Christian Conservative Republican running things back then so it totally ok. Not like it is now with that evil Muslim socialist nazi black man we have in office now...



Then don't get on the plane. You get an order of magnitude more radiation from a 60-minute flight than from an airport body scanner.



Which is why we need a set of standards that's enforced unilaterally, so there are no weak links to be exploited. We don't necessarily need a dedicated agency to do this(the FAA could enforce it) but it should still be done in some form. Body scanners don't even need to enter the equation until they actually work.

I'm not advocating any unreasonable or intrusive scans or pat-downs here, just the same security measures we had on and before 9-11, just, you know, actually done right. We can talk about whether or not to use body scanners if and when they actually become effective at job they need to do.

EDIT- you not only censored my post, but in doing so changed my point. Removing key offensive words is one thing, but you've gone too far when you change the actual idea I'm trying to convey. That's some 1984 bullsh!t right there. I'm changing it back, sans what I assume was the most offensive word.

When you opt out you aren't taken to a private room, it's really quite public. Last time I opted out I got to stand next to another person off next to the scanners and we both got a nice little pat down.

I was referencing the post where the lady was taken into a room and basically cavity searched numerous times.

*Liked

http://gmancasefile.blogspot.com/2012/01/tsa-fail.html

Interesting article written by a Former FBI agent specializing is Anti-terrorism.