Newest GOP Red Herring: Airports Can Opt-Out of TSA

[Dale00]

Yes, but the GOP is playing it like it will result in less intrusive passenger inspections, which is simply not the case.

Even so, the airport must get the approval of the Federal Government to opt-out. The Federal Government has the right to deny such approval even if the airport's private screening process meets or exceed the effectiveness of TSA's process as required by law.

Thanks for the insights. Sounds like we'll have to insist on real change instead of change in name only.

 

[RickN]

Did they opt-out before TSA started that procedure?

They have to have a review of their procedures with Uncle Sam every 2 years to make sure that their procedures are the same as or "better than" TSA's at the time of the review.

TSA must still supervise all private screeners.

My understanding is that they do the pat down searches as required but the requirements are not as intrusive as many TSA screeners are doing, which is where the flap is coming about. Some of the TSA people are abusing the process and now everyone is getting upset about them.

 

[vvvvvvv]

My understanding is that they do the pat down searches as required but the requirements are not as intrusive as many TSA screeners are doing, which is where the flap is coming about. Some of the TSA people are abusing the process and now everyone is getting upset about them.

From what I understand, the more intrusive TSA screenings, including the scans, are the current approved procedure.

If so, the question needs to be asked about the San Francisco airport of if it chose to opt-out before or after the current procedure.

If after, then that means there is a precedent that less intrusive screenings meet or exceed the effectiveness of TSA's screenings according to the Federal Government. Else, that means that the SF airport is good until it's re-evaluation comes up.

 

[RickN]

From what I understand, the more intrusive TSA screenings, including the scans, are the current approved procedure.

If so, the question needs to be asked about the San Francisco airport of if it chose to opt-out before or after the current procedure.

If after, then that means there is a precedent that less intrusive screenings meet or exceed the effectiveness of TSA's screenings according to the Federal Government. Else, that means that the SF airport is good until it's re-evaluation comes up.

Pretty sure it was before, but my understanding is that they meet all current requirements. Like I said, it seems that some TSA screeners are going well past the requirements. One report is that a "Hot Girl" was forced to undergo the most intrusive search yet and was told she could not say no.

Forgot to mention they even did the search on a 3 year old girl and made a cancer survivor remove her prosthetic breast. They are doing these but even with the recent bombs shipped by freight, are refusing to scan all freight.

I should also note it is not just the one GOP guy pissed at the TSA. Many Democrats in congress are yelling too. He is just the first calling for airports to use private firms as a push back against the TSA.

 

[RickN]

For a little humor, I thought you folks might enjoy this about the hard working TSA people trying to keep you safe when you fly.

A friend recently deployed to Afghanistan. He said a commercial airliner picked them up at their base and flew them to Maine to meet a military charter. Here's the interesting part.....he said they all carried their M-16s (and I presume other weapons such as knives and bayonets) on the commercial flight. I thought perhaps they then changed planes at Bangor (?) but didn't go into a secure area. Still seems strange to me. I was rather skeptical until I read the following on a travel blog (Chris Elliott's column):

"My husband tells the funniest airline security story I have heard. When he was flying to Iraq the first time with the military his unit took a smaller regional plane to get to Dallas for the military chartered plane. Each of them was fully armed with M-16s, some with pistols, a couple with machine guns etc and they were all carrying pocket knives and larger tactical knives as well as bayonets. As they were loading the plane there was a woman standing on the jet way with a small plastic bag. She announced that they all needed to drop their lighters in the bag and lighters were a potential terrorist item. Needless to say they all looked at each other with their myriad of real weapons and (without dropping lighters) laughed and got on the plane. My husband said they laughed the entire 17 hours of flight over this.
Has anyone else heard of or seen this? Wonder how they handle this with TSA? Story above is hilarious!

And more,

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/18/another-tsa-outrage/

 

[Dale00]

From what I understand, the more intrusive TSA screenings, including the scans, are the current approved procedure.

This is the problem - the TSA/Homeland Security is making up the rules as they go and our rights are being trampled in the process. It can only get worse unless we resist. TSA/Homeland Security is a new government behemoth and they think they can do as they wish because they are so big and security trumps freedom.

 

[oklaccer]

So why not have a totally new idea and procedure. Eliminate screenings, and require every willing soul to fly with an openly carried firearm. Imagine a BG trying to get to the cockpit. A few stray rounds may do some collateral damage, but the plane lands safely with a dead perp.

 

[Glocktogo]

Mica is the Chuck Shumer of TSA. He has a HUGE hardon for TSA and actively hopes for TSA to fail every day. What he fails to mention to everyone is that all airports that opt out of TSA screening will still be required to conduct each screening requirement EXACTLY like TSA does currently. This is a congressionally mandated requirement. When you see something stupid, it's because congress wanted it that way. The reason there have been no more airports to opt out since 2002 is because each airport looked at the opt out program and saw no benefit to opting out.

 

[Glocktogo]

This is the problem - the TSA/Homeland Security is making up the rules as they go and our rights are being trampled in the process. It can only get worse unless we resist. TSA/Homeland Security is a new government behemoth and they think they can do as they wish because they are so big and security trumps freedom.

Have you read the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA)? Have you read the Vision 100 - Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act? Do you know the difference between TSA/Homeland Security and Congress? You know, the branch of government that tells TSA/Homeland Security exactly what to do? Do you have a clue what you're talking about besides what you feel?

Do us all a favor, get educated before spouting off about things which you know nothing of, please!

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Aviation_and_Transportation_Security_Act_ATSA_Public_Law_107_1771.pdf

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h108-2115

 

[Cue]

Who's decision is it to use the weiner scanner? I find it interesting that Tulsa has one but If you go 100 miles away, you can bypass that all together and just go through a metal detector. DFW which sees 100 times the amount of people only has a puffer.