TSA Considers Proposals To Allow Sharp Objects on Planes

[JABBS]

File this under "Worst Ideas Ever."

The new head of the Transportation Security Administration, Edmund "Kip" Hawley, recently asked his staff to propose changes to the way the agency screens 2 million passengers daily.

The staff's first set of recommendations, detailed in an Aug. 5 memo and reported Aug. 12 by the Washington Post, includes a proposal to lift the ban on various carry-on items such as scissors, razor blades and knives less than five inches long. The proposal also would allow ice picks, throwing stars and bows and arrows on flights.

Hawley, rather than throwing the suggestion aside, and-or questioning the logic behind it, instead will allow further disussion of the proposal this month, the Post reports.

***

If it bothers you that the TSA is spending your tax dollars to consider ways to make us less safe, consider the reasons behind it.

The Post reports that the "TSA is struggling with new cuts in the screener workforce imposed by Congress while its new leaders hope to improve the agency's poor reputation among air travelers by introducing more customer-friendly measures."

Let's look at that factoid:

1) Why did Congress cut the screener workforce? I don't know. Perhaps it was a misguided response to recent reports that the TSA has been guilty of rampant waste and fraud. Hey, it's important for our government to crack down on such things as the $500,000 spent on art, silk plants and other decorations for a new operations center, but cutting employees whose sole charge is to protect airline passengers does nothing to reduce waste and fraud. Certainly the government should realize that there's a difference between paying for bad employees and cutting needed staff, right? Using that logic would be like dumping your car because of a flat tire.

How could President Bush have approved the TSA budget? What are his priorities as he tells Americans, over and over, that "we're safer" under his helm?

2) How is it "customer-friendly" to allow scissors, razor blades, small knives, ice picks, throwing stars and bows and arrows on flights? Is there a great need to cut things, shave, pick ice, practice martial arts or target practice on a moving flight? Would you allow these things into an elementary school? Would you allow them into a packed stadium? Of course not. It would make no sense -- those things serve no purpose in those settings. Equally, they serve no purpose on an airplane.

Not surprising, the Post was able to find at least one security analyst to praise the agency's proposal, saying that security screeners spend too much time trying to find nail scissors and not enough time focused on today's biggest threat: a suicide bomber boarding an airplane.

K. Jack Riley, a homeland security expert at Rand Corp., said hardened cockpit doors, air marshals and stronger public vigilance will prevent another 9/11-style hijacking. "Frankly, the preeminent security challenge at this point is keeping explosives off the airplane," Riley said.

Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but when did screening for sharp objects and screening for explosives mutually exclusive searches?

We all complain about long lines, but I have to figure the majority of air passengers would rather wait five more minutes in line to know that the TSA has done its best to keep ice picks and other sharp objects off their flights.

***

Why isn't there money for airport screeners and high-tech machines? Maybe the government just has other priorities.

For example, President Bush just signed a $286 million federal highway bill that included an estimated $23 million of pork -- for projects like upgrades to the National Packard Museum in Ohio. Similarly, the recently passed energy bill has been criticized for being laden with pork and corporate welfare. (Maybe, after seeing all that pork, that's why President Bush can consider it an achievement to forecast "only" a $333 billion federal deficit for the current fiscal year. Hard to believe Bush ran in 2000 as a "fiscal conservative.")

How can anyone ok spending for pork, and at the same time allow the TSA to face budget cuts for its screener workforce, and lack the necessary equipment to screen for explosives?

Hey, if the money can't be had for homeland security by cutting pork, wouldn't most Americans be willing to fork over $3 or $5 per ticket -- or whatever the nominal cost is -- to keep the dumped screeners aboard, pay for the additional equipment, and better ensure airline safety?

Aw hell, the TSA probably doesn't think that's being "customer friendly."

***

The TSA, no doubt because of its reduced screener force, is also looking for ways to reduce the number of people it has to screen.

The memo recommends no longer patting down certain categories of passengers, such as members of Congress, airline pilots, Cabinet members, state governors, federal judges, high-ranking military officers and people with top-secret security clearances.

While that may seem reasonable, other suggestions are more questionable. For example, the memo suggests screeners also would not have to pat down "those persons whose outermost garments closely conform to the natural contour of the body."

But let's remember that not every bomber straps explosives to their chest. For example, consider where convicted "shoe bomber" Richard Reid put his bombs. Couldn't a person wearing a thick sweater -- conforming to the natural contour of the body -- in theory have a similar-sized explosive and waltz onto an airplane?

It gets worse. The system currently flags passengers who book one-way tickets or modify travel plans at the last minute. The new TSA plan would give TSA managers assigned to each major airport the option to de-select such passengers?

What possible reason would there be for de-selecting such a passenger?

Right. They want to be "customer-friendly."

***

Douglas Laird, former head of security for Northwest Airlines, was one security expert who recognizes the stupidity of the various TSA proposals.

For example, Laird said exempting certain categories of passengers from security screening would be dangerous because trusted groups have occasionally abused the privilege.

"In an effort to be customer friendly, they're forgetting that their primary requirement is to keep airplanes safe," Laird said.

***

This article first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.

[jobycom]

1. Usama told to Bush to make it easier or else he couldn't help him?

[wli]

4. Osama's been dead for years, the recordings are fake

The Guardian (UK) even runs stories saying so.

[jobycom]

7. Then his successor.

[wli]

2. given that all these scares are false flag attacks anyway

It's much more relevant what Fitzgerald does than what the TSA does.

Overt weapons are pretty stupid, though.

[jobycom]

6. Go bet your own life

There are over 300 million people in America and few billion worldwide. I don't trust all of them.

[wli]

8. I did say "overt weapons are pretty stupid" n/t

[madeline_con]

3. ".. ice picks, throwing stars and ...

... bows and arrows on flights"

Things commonly found in the average pocket, I suppose.

"... introducing more customer-friendly measures."

Pre 9/11, when planes were "customer-friendly", there were limits!
:yoiks:

[JABBS]

5. ice picks, throwing stars

... there's no reason to risk that someone would use such things for hijacking or other nefarious purposes. Just stupid.

[madeline_con]

12. Who comes up with the list?

I mean, who's bitching about not being able to bring these items into the passenger cabin? It's too strange.

[DELUSIONAL]

9. a small pocket knife would be nice -- or nail file

would be nice to have.

A small pocket knife to cut off the tape in case your suitcase is invaded by the government jerks.

Nail file -- because I always tear a fingernail -- and am desperate until I can file it.

But I would rather have to go through my carry ons to be sure I don't have anything sharp or prohibited -- knowing that some KKK or white psychopath like Timothy McVeigh also can't have something dangerous. I worry more about the extreme right than the Islamic extremists.

[JABBS]

11. extreme right

Don't forget, DHS isn't concerned with the extreme right.

[madeline_con]

13. 1st,, love the site, JABBS...

Any kind of extremist is dangerous.

The only thing I can come up with as a reason not to include the Right end of the nut spectrum is maybe some neocon belief that they can be called upon to help out and shore up the government in the event of them implementing marshall law.

I love conspiracy theory. :blush:

[JABBS]

14. not much excuse ...

I think the exclusion of the fringe right dovetails with the belief in some conservative circles, such as talk radio, that the TSA should only screen for "Muslims."

Of course, Muslims are diverse -- only 15% of Muslims are Arab -- but why let little facts like that get in the way of religious discrimination and a call for illegal profiling?

[madeline_con]

15. Yep, there's that.

Kudos on the site, though. Do you write it?

[JABBS]

23. JABBS

I do. The site is updated once or twice a day with articles, briefs, and the occasional WTF moment.

Thanks for the compliment. And feel free to visit and comment often. LOL

[DELUSIONAL]

17. I know -- and that really frightens me

one of the under reported stories -- about that right wing nut who had weapons of mass destruction in a storage facility a couple of years ago in Arizona or Texas. Enough components for nerve gas or some such terrible thing.

The "home grown" nut cases are the ones we need to be concerned about -- but as you pointed out the current idiots in power don't want to insult their cult members.

From the great website listed above ---

- In 2003, a Texas man, William J. Krar, pleaded guilty to charges of possessing a weapon of mass destruction. Authorities had discovered enough sodium cyanide bombs to kill hundreds of people; machine guns and several hundred thousand rounds of ammunition; 60 pipe bombs; and remote-control explosive devices disguised as briefcases in a storage space he rented. Krar was a white supremecist and tied to fringe right groups.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frustrated_lefty]

16. How about lighters?

It's annoying to have to discard my lighter and buy a few books of matchsticks everytime I have to take a flight. Seriously. How the hell is a match less dangerous than a lighter? Their primary requirement is to keep planes safe is such a crock.

[Massacure]

19. Can't the lighter still be put in baggage in the cargo bay?

I thought you just cannot have it in carry ons.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. What- is Ted Nugent getting hassled by security again?

[confludemocrat]

20. Proposed TSA policy: As long as they can't get into cockpit, anything goes

as far as sharp objects. That is their, as usual, muddleheaded thinking. Like someone above said, allowing "throwing stars" is on the table. WTF? Idiotic. They are in reality more concerned with bombs being brought on board as we can all tell.

At any rate, they will continue to pull hairspray and flasks of alcohol out of bags while possibly allowing ice picks in the passenger cabin. Here in Montana we have as many people to check you over on departure as I experience arriving back from Europe through Detroit or Minneapolis and passing the Int'l arrivals area into the domestic departure area.

[Eric J in MN]

21. Seal the front of the plane, with a bathroom for pilots in the front

of the plane.

Then we won't have to worry about passengers using weapons to hijack the plane.

[JABBS]

24. that's the TSA argument

But of course, allowing knives and ice picks and whatnot could still allow a deranged person from trying to do something, not knowing that the doors to the cockpit are locked. You could still have an idiot stab someone as a result.

Why tempt fate?

[Eric J in MN]

26. I'm not aware of any plans to seal off the front of the planes

and put separate bathrooms for the pilots there.

I was saying what should be done.

[Jack_DeLeon]

28. I can stab someone with a pencil or a sturdy pen...

should we give those up aswell in the name of security?

Everyday its possible for someone to do something crazy and shank you or whatever, that doesnt mean everyeone should be disarmed and we should all live in fear.

Better to just go on with life and if something happens then you deal with it.

If some fucker goes crazy onboard a plane, armed with a knife or not there isnt much that can be done but to just get physical with him. Better we all learn this now.

In the future if someone goes a little crazy or tries to hijack a plane its better if the passengers just stomp the shit out of them there and then.

[Boo Boo]

22. The TSA is already allowing sharp objects on planes

My dear sweet senior-citizen mother accidently boarded a plane with a kitchen knife in her purse a couple weeks ago. I'm talking about a real knife; very sharp, long enough to create fatal stab wounds. Her purse went right through the x-ray machine, and nobody batted an eye. She only found out about it later.

[JABBS]

25. someone is listening

The TSA Screeners website picked the story up.

Maybe they'll figure out a way to knock some sense into upper management.

[Jack_DeLeon]

27. Makes sense to me...

it was legal before 9/11 I dont see how 9/11 really changed anything in that regard.

IMO you have to be an idiot to think that boxcutters and small knives are what are responsible for the largest terrorist attack in American history.

The minds of the individuals who planned that attack were the real deadly weapon there.

[JABBS]

29. why tempt fate?

Was it because of box cutters and small knives that 9/11 happened? No. But is there anyone who doubts that having those weapons helped the terrorists gain control of the airplanes?

The truth is, the TSA leadership is looking for ways to cut corners, given the reduced number of TSA screeners. That's ass-backwards logic. Congress should restore the funding for the TSA screeners and to allow for spending on the necessary high-tech machines.

Otherwise, Bush saying "we're safer" is just empty rhetoric.

[Jack_DeLeon]

30. the TSA is a failure...

No. But is there anyone who doubts that having those weapons helped the terrorists gain control of the airplanes?

Yes.

They were legal to carry onboard the plane that day and that is why they were chosen. The people who commited those acts were very determined and they also did not want to fail because of doing something stupid on the ground.

Had box cutters been illegal I'm sure those people would have just continued on using pencils and pens, let me ask you would you feel any different if someone had a sharp pencil at your throat than if they had a boxcutter?

The truth is, the TSA leadership is looking for ways to cut corners, given the reduced number of TSA screeners. That's ass-backwards logic. Congress should restore the funding for the TSA screeners and to allow for spending on the necessary high-tech machines.

Otherwise, Bush saying "we're safer" is just empty rhetoric.

Its always been empty rhetoric, even when it was better funded. Do you think random searches do anything to improve security?

IMO the best thing the government and the TSA can do is bomb detection. Get those machines and get the people properly trained on how to use them.

If there is another attempeted hijacking the people on board can deal with it this time.

[JABBS]

31. why can't we have both?

Why can't we prevent people from carrying bombs onto planes AND prevent them from carrying sharp things onto planes?

And I'm sorry, if terrorists on 9/11 tried to overtake a plane using pencils and pens, the other passengers would have beaten the hell out of them. I don't think the average person feels threatened by a ballpoint pen. They would feel threatened by an ice pick, a throwing star, or a five-inch knife.

I think you underestimate the American people. They are willing to put up with lines (they have thus far) and with security detectors, being patted down, etc., for years before 9/11. I have not heard of any groups clamoring to do away with these things now, even though they have become more difficult (more time consuming) since 9/11.

The American people want to fly safe. Period. They want to know that the TSA and/or the airlines and airport security are doing everything they can to prevent a hijacking or a terrorist threat.