TSA Creator: TSA failed to detect any threat, disband

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46114

They’ve been accused of rampant thievery, spending billions of dollars like drunken sailors, groping children and little old ladies, and making everyone take off their shoes.

But the real job of the tens of thousands of screeners at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is to protect Americans from a terrorist attack.

Yet a decade after the TSA was created following the September 11 attacks, the author of the legislation that established the massive agency grades its performance at “D-.”

“The whole program has been hijacked by bureaucrats,” said Rep. John Mica (R. -Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

“It mushroomed into an army,” Mica said. “It’s gone from a couple-billion-dollar enterprise to close to $9 billion.”


As for keeping the American public safe, Mica says, “They’ve failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years.”

“Everything they have done has been reactive. They take shoes off because of [shoe-bomber] Richard Reid, passengers are patted down because of the diaper bomber, and you can’t pack liquids because the British uncovered a plot using liquids,” Mica said.

“It’s an agency that is always one step out of step,” Mica said.

It cost $1 billion just to train workers, which now number more than 62,000, and “they actually trained more workers than they have on the job,” Mica said.


“The whole thing is a complete fiasco,” Mica said.

In a wide-ranging interview with HUMAN EVENTS just days before the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Mica said screeners should be privatized and the agency dismantled.

Instead, the agency should number no more than 5,000, and carry out his original intent, which was to monitor terrorist threats and collect intelligence.

The fledgling agency was quickly engulfed in its first scandal in 2002 as it rushed to hire 30,000 screeners, and the $104 million awarded to the company to contract workers quickly escalated to more than $740 million.

Federal investigators tracked those cost overruns to recruiting sessions held at swank hotels and resorts in St. Croix, the Virgin Islands, Florida and the Wyndham Peaks Resort and Golden Door Spa in Telluride, Colo.

Charges in the hundreds of thousands of dollars were made for cash withdrawals, valet parking and beverages, plus a $5.4 million salary for one executive for nine months of work.

Other over-the-top expenditures included nearly $2,000 for 20 gallons of Starbucks Coffee, $8,000 for elevator operators at a Manhattan hotel, and $1,500 to rent more than a dozen extension cords for the Colorado recruiting fair.

The agency inadvertently caused security gaps by failing for years to keep track of lost uniforms and passes that lead to restricted areas of airports.

Screeners have also been accused of committing crimes, from smuggling drugs to stealing valuables from passengers' luggage. In 2004, several screeners were arrested and charged with stealing jewelry, computers and cameras, cash, credit cards and other valuables. One of their more notable victims was actress Shirley McClain, who was robbed of jewelry and crystals.

One of the screeners confessed that he was trying to steal enough to sell the items and buy a big-screen television.

In 2006, screeners at Los Angeles and Chicago O'Hare airports failed to find more than 60% of fake explosives during checkpoint security tests.

The sometimes rudder-less agency has gone through five administrators in the past decade, and it took longer than a year for President Obama to put his one man in place. Mica’s bill also blocked collective bargaining rights for screeners, but the Obama administration managed to reverse that provision.

Asked whether the agency should be privatized, Mica answered with a qualified yes.

“They need to get out of the screening business and back into security. Most of the screening they do should be abandoned,” Mica said. "I just don’t have a lot of faith at this point,” Mica said.

Allowing airports to privatize screening was a key element of Mica’s legislation and a report released by the committee in June determined that privatizing those efforts would result in a 40% savings for taxpayers.

“We have thousands of workers trying to do their job. My concern is the bureaucracy we built,” Mica said.

“We are one of the only countries still using this model of security," Mica said, "other than Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, and I think, Libya."

I'm pretty anti-TSA, but I don't see a private industry doing much better if they have to adhere to all the TSA regulations.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
yeah remove them and put a for profit in and you will cost 30% more or be 30% less effective.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
yeah remove them and put a for profit in and you will cost 30% more or be 30% less effective.

That's correct, if you're talking about a government placed contractor. Government paying companies to do things end up more expensive and less effective.

But airline companies have good reasons for not wanting their planes blow up. Bureaucrats do not give a shit, they just want their little fiefdom to expand.

You can replace all TSA regulation with one little clause that states airlines are responsible for the safety of their passengers and government will not block or bailout companies from expensive lawsuits arising from inadequate protection.

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy. Why do big government idiots like Jstorm always insist on maximum complexity?
 
Last edited:

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Yeah so easy until in the small print of your ticket you waive those rights
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
actually a quick google search shows you can waive your right to sue.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,829
8,424
136
I'm for privatizing so long as the money to pay for security comes from the private sector and not the federal gov't.

You want it privatized, then privatize it completely. No federal subsidizing, no tax breaks, no federal regulating. Let the Corporations take full responsibility for the security and safety of its passengers from the time they set foot at any airport till the time they leave them.

And while we're at it, let's get rid of the FAA's job and have the airlines and aircraft builders regulate themselves. HA!

Let's let the profit incentive dictate how many deaths, accidents and crashes are acceptable to the investors of these businesses and see how REALLY safe and secure private industry is willing to make flying for its customers and employees alike.

Is Big Business willing to spend as much as the Gov't spends to insure that our aircraft, airports and airlines are safe and secure as they can be? REALLY?

Then let's see how that affects the cost of travelling from point A to B and how safe things are without federal involvement.

Question being: Is the travelling public willing to trust their lives on hardware and services that rely on maximum profit as the primary deciding factor in all decisions made for this industry?
 
Last edited:

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
all we have to do it make some legislation, dude. Easy peasy lemon squeezes. See problem solved in like 3 minutes. GOD the word is full of idiotS!
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
Honestly, TSA needs to learn from Israeli airport security.


El-Al, the israeli airline, has never been hijacked since ONE time in 1968.


Do you know what they do? They interview every passenger and ask specific questions and are trained for responses.


Sure, it may take longer to board planes, but track record speaks for itself.

Especially Israel being such a huge target for terrorists.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,829
8,424
136
all we have to do it make some legislation, dude. Easy peasy lemon squeezes. See problem solved in like 3 minutes. GOD the word is full of idiotS!

Yeah! Legislate not regulate! Legislate not regulate! That way the uber rich Corp's can really go to town by turning loose their bought and owned K Street politicians/lobbyists (who can tell the difference nowdays anyway?) like the good 'ol Bush/Cheney days. :D
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,829
8,424
136
Honestly, TSA needs to learn from Israeli airport security.


El-Al, the israeli airline, has never been hijacked since ONE time in 1968.


Do you know what they do? They interview every passenger and ask specific questions and are trained for responses.


Sure, it may take longer to board planes, but track record speaks for itself.

Especially Israel being such a huge target for terrorists.


The profit motive is what's going to stop that dead in it's tracks. Well, that and the passenger's impatience/intolerance of anything that will make their trip more excruciating and frustrating.

We long for the good 'ol days when terrorists behaved themselves by terrorizing their own people at home instead of moving their business offshore. ;)
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
The profit motive is what's going to stop that dead in it's tracks. Well, that and the passenger's impatience/intolerance of anything that will make their trip more excruciating and frustrating.

We long for the good 'ol days when terrorists behaved themselves by terrorizing their own people at home instead of moving their business offshore. ;)

Yea that is true.


Thankfully, no terrorists have been smart enough to actually do any harm, but I can imagine if 1 American flight gets hijacked, regardless of the outcome, most people wouldnt mind extra security, as long as it didnt involve getting groped
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,829
8,424
136
Yea that is true.


Thankfully, no terrorists have been smart enough to actually do any harm, but I can imagine if 1 American flight gets hijacked, regardless of the outcome, most people wouldnt mind extra security, as long as it didnt involve getting groped

Agreed.
 

Macamus Prime

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2011
3,108
0
0
Wait - I thought the swine fingermen of these forums wanted the TSA to exist.

You DO realize, that by privitizing it, you are in effect ensuring it will go union. And, if it goes union, you guys will want to see the TSA disbanded.

Think about what will happen:
1) TSA is privatized
2) 30 to 50% increase in costs, to account for all the new layers of management and profit goals
3) Since the layers of management will cost an extra 30 to 50%,...
4) ,.. said cost is passed onto; a) the airline company and b) the American people
5) The new TSA will then ask for government money to help them maintain profits and growth, special tax exemptions because they ARE protecting America after all
6) They will slash benefits, which will,...
7) ,... result in the TSA workforce unionizing, which will,...
8) ,... cause a public outcry, by swine fingermen such as yourselves, to disband and punish them for DARING to want to make a living and grow
9) Strikes will occur and then a thread like; "TSA Union Thugs Are Terrorists!!" because they went on strike for refusing to work on their lowered comp and benefits
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
I'm for privatizing so long as the money to pay for security comes from the private sector and not the federal gov't.

You want it privatized, then privatize it completely. No federal subsidizing, no tax breaks, no federal regulating. Let the Corporations take full responsibility for the security and safety of its passengers from the time they set foot at any airport till the time they leave them.

And while we're at it, let's get rid of the FAA's job and have the airlines and aircraft builders regulate themselves. HA!

Let's let the profit incentive dictate how many deaths, accidents and crashes are acceptable to the investors of these businesses and see how REALLY safe and secure private industry is willing to make flying for its customers and employees alike.

Is Big Business willing to spend as much as the Gov't spends to insure that our aircraft, airports and airlines are safe and secure as they can be? REALLY?

Then let's see how that affects the cost of travelling from point A to B and how safe things are without federal involvement.

Question being: Is the travelling public willing to trust their lives on hardware and services that rely on maximum profit as the primary deciding factor in all decisions made for this industry?

You realize that most airport security was private before 9/11 right? The entire TSA is bad joke. 90% of the what they do is completely pointless and ineffective. Even if it was effective devoting that amount of resources to protecting airplanes is stupid. There are a million soft targets out there that could be hit much easier than an airplane. The goal should just be to prevent 9/11 style hijackings in which airplanes can be turned into weapons.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
actually a quick google search shows you can waive your right to sue.

Not if there is a law that says that you can not in specific circumstances....

Sort of like how a 15 year old can not legally enter into a contract on their own, that is because a law was passed.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
I'm for privatizing so long as the money to pay for security comes from the private sector and not the federal gov't.

You want it privatized, then privatize it completely. No federal subsidizing, no tax breaks, no federal regulating. Let the Corporations take full responsibility for the security and safety of its passengers from the time they set foot at any airport till the time they leave them.

And while we're at it, let's get rid of the FAA's job and have the airlines and aircraft builders regulate themselves. HA!

Let's let the profit incentive dictate how many deaths, accidents and crashes are acceptable to the investors of these businesses and see how REALLY safe and secure private industry is willing to make flying for its customers and employees alike.

Is Big Business willing to spend as much as the Gov't spends to insure that our aircraft, airports and airlines are safe and secure as they can be? REALLY?

Then let's see how that affects the cost of travelling from point A to B and how safe things are without federal involvement.

Question being: Is the travelling public willing to trust their lives on hardware and services that rely on maximum profit as the primary deciding factor in all decisions made for this industry?

What is truly ironic is that most of you don't understand the actual function of the TSA.
You think it is to help you, me, and the rest of the public. It is not. Its true purpose is very simple and goes against everything you (appear to) believe.

The actual purpose of the TSA being "responsible" for screening/airport security is to remove the liability from the big businesses (airlines). Today if an airplane gets blown up by a terrorist and that terrorist boarded the plane because of sheer incompetence (like the underwear bomber), guess who is off the hook...

TSA exists in its current form to protect the airlines. They are one big ass subsidy straight to the pockets of big business.


BTW, I seem to recall airlines providing their own security pre-9/11 and other then 9/11 (which is impossible to do again with the simple regulation of fortified locked cockpit doors) I don't seem to recall planes blowing up on a weekly basis.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
You realize that most airport security was private before 9/11 right? The entire TSA is bad joke. 90% of the what they do is completely pointless and ineffective.

You are wrong, it is very effective at doing what it is intended to do. You simply misunderstand what its actual intentions are.

Even if it was effective devoting that amount of resources to protecting airplanes is stupid.

They aren't protecting airplanes they are protecting the companies that own and operate the airplanes.
The goal should just be to prevent 9/11 style hijackings in which airplanes can be turned into weapons.

That has already been done. Fortified cockpit doors that remain locked during the entire duration of the flight (I believe from the door closing at the departing gate to the door opening at the arrival gate) is required by regulation. It really is that simple, if the asshole can not enter the cockpit he can not use the plane as a weapon. Sure he can still kill people and if he has a bomb big enough he can destroy the plane but it is no longer possible to use commercial airlines as missiles due to the creative use of a reinforced door and a friggen deadbolt.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
TSA is a joke. i don't know ANYONE that thinks they are keeping passengers safe or that how they are going about "security" is actually helpful.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
yeah remove them and put a for profit in and you will cost 30% more or be 30% less effective.

When has government bureaucracy ever been more efficient than private sector?

A for-profit firm has the drive to be as efficient as possible, whereas a government-run monopoly has no similar need. If one company is too bloated or too expensive, airports will switch to another company that is cheaper and more efficient.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
I am all for the airlines providing their own security. When $$ comes in to play, things get a lot more secure. The TSA has no skin in the game. If they fail, nothing happens to them, no one loses their job. If private airline security fails, the airline goes out of business everyone loses their job.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
I agree. TSA was a government kneejerk reaction to 9/11, which itself happened due to government negligence and incompetence.