TexasCHLforum.com

striker55 wrote:I say let the airlines handle security at check points, they have more to lose if something bad happens. Plus anytime the government gets involved with anything there is more red tape and expense.

Best solution is to hold airlines liable (civil) if they are negligent in screening for threats and as a result there are deaths. The government should stop infringing on my 4th amendment rights for a screening process that doesn't reduce threats anyway.

Close TSA, fire the workers and contract the job to El Al.

The airlines are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, the ones who have avoided it so far. Making them civilly liable, even more than they are already, solves nothing.

We have to quit playing stupid games and get serious, even if it offends a few, or quite a few, or most of them.

I hasten to add that I can't travel by air anymore as a practical matter, so my dog in this fight may have run away.

The TSA does not need to be abolished, but they need to be forced to change their ways.

I would love to see congress mandate that they send a team to Israel to study and then implement their protocols. No country on the planet faces the number of threats the Israelis do and they have airport security down to a science. Their methods are about 1,000 times better than what we have and the passengers are not put through the wringer and treated like dirt.

Pawpaw wrote:The TSA does not need to be abolished, but they need to be forced to change their ways.

I would love to see congress mandate that they send a team to Israel to study and then implement their protocols. No country on the planet faces the number of threats the Israelis do and they have airport security down to a science. Their methods are about 1,000 times better than what we have and the passengers are not put through the wringer and treated like dirt.

There was never any reason to federalize airport security after 9/11, especially in a nation as large as the US. I'd still rather have MASSPORT/Mass State Police running the checkpoints at Logan than the TSA. Physical security of airports is still a state responsibility and the airlines have already adopted the federal standards for cockpit doors, cabin security, etc. The Feds can stick to staffing Sky Marshals and vetting armed pilots, without another bureaucracy of "Thousands Standing Around". The Democrats insisted on federalizing airport security after 9/11 because they had their eye on thousands more dues paying public union members funding campaign checks and lobbying on behalf of more government. Their not unionized yet...but just wait.

Israel has a great system, but they also are a tiny country with about 100th the air traffic of the US, and facing more significant threats.

As big a fiasco as it has become, quite predictably, letting each airport handle security, or each state, would be worse. With people traveling all over the place, state to state, there is some comfort, considerable value, in uniformity.

Look how much we suffer because each state has their own notions about carrying a firearm. Oversight, carelessness, events beyond your control like diverting to New Jersey, and you end up in jail, a felon.

The attitude and methods used by El Al might be scaled up.

Pawpaw wrote:The TSA does not need to be abolished, but they need to be forced to change their ways.

I would love to see congress mandate that they send a team to Israel to study and then implement their protocols. No country on the planet faces the number of threats the Israelis do and they have airport security down to a science. Their methods are about 1,000 times better than what we have and the passengers are not put through the wringer and treated like dirt.

I have to dIsagree with you on this one Pawpaw. The DHS was given basically unlimited funds and powers after 9/11 to set up and run the TSA, and it has been a miserable failure at every turn. And no thank, I won't ever vote for the Big Brother version they have in Israel.

The airports have Always had the power to refuse them and use private contractors. However it was easier to go along with the Fed desire and allow TSA to goose step in than pay for and establish their own. The requirement are clearly set forth to qualify a security program, and until the Cities that own the airports are forced to pay for it, they will always choose to let the Fed pick up the tab. The airlines are not the ones who should be paying, they already pay money to the city for gate access contracts.

All of DHS needs to be defunded and abolished. The Fed is not capable of running anything efficiently. This entire department is nothing but yet another way to funnel money into pet projects

Private security companies who have to compete and are regularly audited are a far superior option. PSC's are not just a better solution but they are proven overseas in Iraq and A-Stan.

JALLEN wrote:As big a fiasco as it has become, quite predictably, letting each airport handle security, or each state, would be worse. With people traveling all over the place, state to state, there is some comfort, considerable value, in uniformity.

Look how much we suffer because each state has their own notions about carrying a firearm. Oversight, carelessness, events beyond your control like diverting to New Jersey, and you end up in jail, a felon.

The attitude and methods used by El Al might be scaled up.

We have a republic for a reason. It's better for liberty. Each state currently DOES handle the physical security of airports with the Feds providing the standards by which they must operate. That's why DFW Police patrol the terminal instead of the FBI or Marshals. Until 2002 that's how it was for screening. There was no federal standards against taking box cutters on a plane, and even if there was, it's more likely TSA would miss them than MASSPORT or airline rent-a-cop.

ScottDLS wrote:

JALLEN wrote:As big a fiasco as it has become, quite predictably, letting each airport handle security, or each state, would be worse. With people traveling all over the place, state to state, there is some comfort, considerable value, in uniformity.

Look how much we suffer because each state has their own notions about carrying a firearm. Oversight, carelessness, events beyond your control like diverting to New Jersey, and you end up in jail, a felon.

The attitude and methods used by El Al might be scaled up.

We have a republic for a reason. It's better for liberty. Each state currently DOES handle the physical security of airports with the Feds providing the standards by which they must operate. That's why DFW Police patrol the terminal instead of the FBI or Marshals. Until 2002 that's how it was for screening. There was no federal standards against taking box cutters on a plane, and even if there was, it's more likely TSA would miss them than MASSPORT or airline rent-a-cop.

If that is so, why are we griping about the TSA? Each state does not handle security; that's what TSA does, exceptionally poorly.

JALLEN wrote:If that is so, why are we griping about the TSA? Each state does not handle security; that's what TSA does, exceptionally poorly.

Please see my post above so I don't waste forum bandwidth. Be happy to answer from that point.

disband TSA, allow local/state handling of security and have them trained in proper profiling by Israeli airport security
:-)

(note: links below are from a quick non-google search - I have not read them yet)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... urity.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/airport-se ... id=9476997
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/former- ... passengers
http://www.haaretz.com/in-israel-racial ... s-1.261075

JALLEN wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

JALLEN wrote:As big a fiasco as it has become, quite predictably, letting each airport handle security, or each state, would be worse. With people traveling all over the place, state to state, there is some comfort, considerable value, in uniformity.

Look how much we suffer because each state has their own notions about carrying a firearm. Oversight, carelessness, events beyond your control like diverting to New Jersey, and you end up in jail, a felon.

The attitude and methods used by El Al might be scaled up.

We have a republic for a reason. It's better for liberty. Each state currently DOES handle the physical security of airports with the Feds providing the standards by which they must operate. That's why DFW Police patrol the terminal instead of the FBI or Marshals. Until 2002 that's how it was for screening. There was no federal standards against taking box cutters on a plane, and even if there was, it's more likely TSA would miss them than MASSPORT or airline rent-a-cop.

If that is so, why are we griping about the TSA? Each state does not handle security; that's what TSA does, exceptionally poorly.

You didn't read my post. Who handles physical security of airports, patrols the terminals, the grounds, the secure areas? State and local police. TSA only does passenger screening. They are not even Peace Officers or Special Agents, they're not armed, and they don't even have any authority to arrest people. There are a few sworn DHS agents that work with TSA, but only a tiny percentage. It's not even illegal under federal law to carry weapons in terminals, or private aircraft, only scheduled passenger transportation. That's why when they catch somebody carrying in DFW, they don't turn them over to the Marshals or FBI, or DHS, they prosecute them in Tarrant County court. Feds can generally only civilly fine you or put you on the no-fly list.

rotor wrote:For those that have TSA precheck or global or whatever, is there less vetting than LTC?

I Will Let You Know
I have an appointment in June - to get a TSA Pre Check

yodajim wrote:

rotor wrote:For those that have TSA precheck or global or whatever, is there less vetting than LTC?

I Will Let You Know
I have an appointment in June - to get a TSA Pre Check

I can't comment on the extent of the background check, but the interview itself takes less than 10 minutes. And that includes taking fingerprints. So it can't be too in-depth. I too have a June appointment.

10 minutes more than the interview for a LTC...

ScottDLS wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

JALLEN wrote:As big a fiasco as it has become, quite predictably, letting each airport handle security, or each state, would be worse. With people traveling all over the place, state to state, there is some comfort, considerable value, in uniformity.

Look how much we suffer because each state has their own notions about carrying a firearm. Oversight, carelessness, events beyond your control like diverting to New Jersey, and you end up in jail, a felon.

The attitude and methods used by El Al might be scaled up.

We have a republic for a reason. It's better for liberty. Each state currently DOES handle the physical security of airports with the Feds providing the standards by which they must operate. That's why DFW Police patrol the terminal instead of the FBI or Marshals. Until 2002 that's how it was for screening. There was no federal standards against taking box cutters on a plane, and even if there was, it's more likely TSA would miss them than MASSPORT or airline rent-a-cop.

If that is so, why are we griping about the TSA? Each state does not handle security; that's what TSA does, exceptionally poorly.

You didn't read my post. Who handles physical security of airports, patrols the terminals, the grounds, the secure areas? State and local police. TSA only does passenger screening. They are not even Peace Officers or Special Agents, they're not armed, and they don't even have any authority to arrest people. There are a few sworn DHS agents that work with TSA, but only a tiny percentage. It's not even illegal under federal law to carry weapons in terminals, or private aircraft, only scheduled passenger transportation. That's why when they catch somebody carrying in DFW, they don't turn them over to the Marshals or FBI, or DHS, they prosecute them in Tarrant County court. Feds can generally only civilly fine you or put you on the no-fly list.

Sure I did. I was just under the apparent misapprehension that the topic under discussion was TSA, a particular aspect of security with which your post had nothing to do.

I admire precise use of language, but don't get to see it very often.