As a country, are we better off with or without TSA?

[Stinky The Clown]

Yes, there are bad guys out there. Look at Moscow for the latest horrible example.

Yes, airport security can be effective. Look at El Al as a prime example.

The flip side is that life comes with risk. Blowing even three or four airplanes a year out of the sky, while incredibly horrible, has a death toll potential that is statistically minuscule and probably represents an acceptable level of risk. I dare say more lives are lost due to lack of adequate health care than to the potential death toll of four downed airliners.

This is not an easy question. I am not advocating accepting downed planes as the cost of freedom, but I do think we can as effectively prevent such events by good, well funded investigatory and intelligence work as by patting down people in airport lines.

We've shown we can accept a high casualty rate in other areas, so why not flying? Automobile deaths are high. Drunk drivers abound. People die from infected teeth, bad colds, swine flu, Legionnaire's disease, cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and many other health issues, not because of these maladies, but because they go untreated due to lack of health care.

TSA? Are we better off with it or without it?

[LibDemAlways]

1. I am in favor of effective airport security. That's why I

am in favor of dismantling TSA and replacing it with intelligent security that doesn't depend on nudie scans (that not so coincidentally make guys like Michael Chertoff richer) and feel-ups. TSA works on the assumption that every passenger - from the smallest infant to the oldest centenarian - is a potential terrorist. That's ludicrous and a tremendous waste of resources. Hire the best security experts world wide and listen to them. That's where I would start.

[woo me with science]

18. Good answer. nt

[Statistical]

2. Without.

Terrorism kills a negligble number of people (far less than heart disease, car accidents, or even drownings). Dismantle TSA and spend those limited resources on ventures with higher ROI%.

To date neither sky marshalls nor TSA has stopped a single terrorist attack. Every attack since 9/11 has been stopped by passengers & flight crews.

9/11 changed the "economics" of being a hostage. Prior to 9/11 most hostages survived and only heroes died. It didn't make sense to be a hero. On 9/11 everyone died. You have nothing to lose trying to be a "hero".

[MineralMan]

7. What can't be measured is how many attacks have

been prevented before planes got off the ground. There's no way to measure that. I'm going to have to go with supporting the security system, until someone comes up with a practical alternative that will keep people who intent harm off the planes. I haven't heard one that is practical and that doesn't have many of the same drawbacks as the current TSA system.

It's easy to say that the number of people killed would be small. That does nothing, however, to limit the disruption caused by even a single plane taken down by a terrorist.

[LisaL]

8. Well the terrorist in Moscow didn't want to get a bomb onto the plane.

He blew it up in an un-secured area of the airport. How are TSA procedures going to prevent that?

[MineralMan]

16. Current procedures don't protect against that.

Expect new ones to be introduced. They already have been at MSP, where they've increased security in non-secure areas. You can expect additional measures shortly. I've always worried about that, especially at ticketing and baggage claim areas.

Things are always evolving.

How would getting rid of the TSA prevent the same thing?

[LisaL]

What new procedures could possibly protect against that?

Moving security lines outside of the airport? Even if that were possible, that would still create a mass gathering of people waiting to be checked.

[MineralMan]

20. That's a good question. It'll be interesting to see what they

come up with. At LAX, incoming vehicle traffic is often inspected by police, including opening of trunks, etc. I haven't seen that at MSP, but I've been delayed at LAX when being driven to take a flight there.

Other options that will probably be considered are some sort of screening outside of terminal buildings, probably on a random basis. I just don't know. I'm not an airport security expert, or a security expert of any kind.

I can promise, though, that there will be new measures that will annoy you.

[Statistical]

11. If the TSA prevented anything it would be front page news.

TSA = security theater.

Imagine the Moscow attacks but instead of in an open lightly populated arrival lounged it is in the tightly crowded TSA chokepoints (killzones) of say Atlanta airport. Imagine a half dozen terrorists with explosives and ball bearings strapped to their chests. They purchases tickets, get in line and at the same time (once there are other passengers all around) detonate a half dozen bombs into tightly packed people.

TSA = security theater.

[woo me with science]

34. +1000 nt

[Stinky The Clown]

12. How many traffic deaths are acceptable to you? How many cancer deaths?

How much does airport security cost the government?

How much is the government spending to end traffic deaths or cancer?

Does the word "proportionality" mean anything to you?

Please . . . . .

[MineralMan]

19. Neither traffic deaths or cancer deaths are the cause

of serious and widespread disruption in air travel or much of anything else. How much does cancer research and treatment cost the government. How much does traffic safety and enforcement cost the government?

For air travel, proportionality also has to take disruption of air travel into consideration, not just lives lost.

[Xithras]

28. That disruption of air travel is due to our own paranoia, not anything the terrorists have done.

Just for the sake of contrast, what would have happened if that bomb had gone off in the international terminal of a major American airport? How long would they have shut the airport down? How long would they have closed the airspace to other international flights? It would be a nightmare.

But look how the Russians handled it. When the bomb went off, Domodedovo was closed for 20 minutes. After that, they reopened the runways and simply shifted all of their international traffic to another terminal temporarily. A number of their domestic flights were shifted to other nearby airports to free up terminal space.

20 minutes, and it was back to business as (almost) usual.

Our disruptions are caused by our own paranoid policies and overreaction.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. Security Threater 3000

[Orsino]

3. With.

It's the rest of the military-industrial paranoia that's killing us. TSA is not the source of our ills.

[ecstatic]

4. If you don't like it, don't fly

It's really that simple. (And no, I don't think that TSA's current strategy is effective but I'd prefer some deterrents over none at all)

[LisaL]

6. And if TSA starts doing it on trains, buses, and random

check points, what is it going to be? If you don't like it, don't take a train? If you don't like it, don't take a bus? If you don't like it, don't get out of your house?

[demodonkey]

14. Some people HAVE to fly or lose jobs, be in contempt of the law, etc.

Jobs are scarce. If you have a job that requires flying and you won't fly, very soon you soon don't eat either. What if you live in Seattle and receive a subpoena ordering you to testify before Congress in two days? (can happen) You either fly or you could get charged with Contempt of Congress.

I suggest that if you think that this theatre of forcing people to get groped or else parading them through un-tested, perhaps cancer-causing x-ray machines is going to deter ANYTHING at all, YOU are the one who should give up flying.

[RC]

17. Not flying is not an option for many people.

Travel in this country is at least 20 years behind Europe, Japan, China...

[Stinky The Clown]

26. No, it isn't that simple.

I understand that flying is a choice. But that overly simplifies the matter.

No one I know of, including those my vehemently opposed to the thuggery of TSA's overt tactics espouses no security. What they want is better, more effective, more efficient security.

[david13]

5. I am going to have to say without. For the reasons stated by the

others above, certainly. But also I do not believe they actually stop any terrorists, regardless of their ridiculous tv announcements how they arrested 20 more 'potential' terrorists, every 10 days.
I think they couldn't catch an explosive elephant if it came in the back door.
I don't see them as being efficient, or effective. Or that they even try. They just set up 'bandage on a broken arm' measures that inconvenience everyone, and accomplish nothing.
dc

[Robb]

9. With. Because the alternative is not "no security."

The alternative is private security contractors doing this work.

It's like suggesting we'd be better off without police departments.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Flawed logic

There is a move to replace TSA *workers* with private rent-a-cops. But that's not what this OP is about.

The issue more fundamental.

[MineralMan]

21. So, do you suggest no security at all? A return to the screenings

from the 80s? What? It is the techniques of screening that are the issue, I think. How would you replace them? I do not see any possibility that security screening of some kind will not be used. That's just not going to happen.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chromotone]

13. Well, we might first start by enforcing policies and regulations...

Consider the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, popularly known as the "Underwear Bomber" and supposedly the reason for all the new enhanced TSA practices.

On Christmas Day 2009, Abdulmutallab traveled to Amsterdam, where he boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 en route to Detroit. He had purchased his ticket with cash in Ghana on December 16.<114> Prior to boarding the plane eyewitnesses Kurt Haskell and Lori Haskell testified live on CNN that they witnessed a "smartly dressed Indian man" helping Abdulmutallab onto the plane.<115><116> They also testify that the ticket agent refused to allow Abdulmutallab on the plane because he did not have his own passport. <117>

...and

The awareness of US intelligenceOn November 11, 2009, British intelligence officials sent the U.S. a cable indicating that a man named "Umar Farouk" had spoken to al-Awlaki, pledging to support jihad, but the cable did not reflect Abdulmutallab's last name.<61> Abdulmutallab's father made a report to two CIA officers at the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, on November 19 regarding his son's "extreme religious views",<4><62> and told the embassy that Abdulmutallab might be in Yemen.<6><19><33><63> Acting on the report, the suspect's name was added in November 2009 to the U.S.'s 550,000-name Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, a database of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center. It was not added, however, to the FBI's 400,000-name Terrorist Screening Database, the terror watch list that feeds both the 14,000-name Secondary Screening Selectee list and the U.S.'s 4,000-name No Fly List,<64> nor was his U.S. visa revoked.<19>

U.S. State Department officials said in Congressional testimony that the State Department had wanted to revoke Abdulmutallab's visa, but U.S. intelligence officials requested that his visa not be revoked. The intelligence officials' stated reason was that revoking Abdulmutallab's visa could have foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaida.<65>

Abdulmutallab's name had come to the attention of intelligence officials many months before that,<66> but no "derogatory information" was recorded about him.<41> A Congressional official said that Abdulmutallab's name appeared in U.S. reports reflecting that he had connections to both al-Qaeda and Yemen.<67> The NCTC did not check to see whether Abdulmutallab's American visa was valid, or whether he had a British visa that was valid; therefore, they did not learn that the British had rejected Abdulmutallab's visa application earlier in 2009.<9> The British did not inform the Americans because the visa application was denied to prevent immigration fraud and not for a national security purpose.<9>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab

Okay, so:
1. Was this a one-way ticket? Isn't this an immediate red flag for airline security?
2. Paying in cash? Isn't this also a red flag?
3. Who was the "smartly dressed man" helping him board the plane?
4. Why was allowed to travel without a passport?
5. Why was nothing done about his name appearing on U.S. reports about his connections with al-Qaeda?
6. Why was nothing done about his father reporting him to CIA about his "extreme religious views?"

It looks like some questions need to be answered. At best it's incompetence; at worst, complicity. Either way, we don't have to have our "junk" touched to make up for it.

In short, we don't need the TSA as much as Michael Certoff and his Rapiscan investors believe we should...

[LisaL]

15. I am not sure that either shoe bomber or underwear

bomber bomb was actually capable of blowing up. Clearly these bombs didn't work and not because underwear bomber or a shoe bomber weren't able to get onto the plane.

[chromotone]

23. But the Underwear Bomber *did* get on the plane

That's the question.

Why was he allowed to board without a passport?

And what of the other "red flags?"

And if his name appeared on a terrorist-organization watch list, why wasn't he detained?

And if his own father reported him to the CIA, why was he able to board the plane?

Why weren't these concerns addressed? Is it just easier to grope breasts and genitalia than to follow through and investigate suspicious activity?

I'd like these question answered, instead of mindlessly conceding to sexual assault and porno scans...

[xchrom]

22. well i don't want 'no security' -- and i don't want 'security theatre' either.

it's all in how a thing is done and done effectively -- and we already know about some glaring slip ups with the nudie scans.
my guess is real terror threats will avoid pat downs.

i'd like to see some actual numbers about the tsa as it is currently operating has prevented x numbers of attacks, etc.

i'd to see sniffing dogs used -- and better screening of baggage.

and i want publicly released reviews released every so often -- we need to know how things are or are not working.

[HopeHoops]

24. Without. They're there to satisfy the wimpy GOP fearmongers.

Seriously. You can't take a 5 oz bottle of liquid with you but you can take as many 3 oz bottles of the SAME liquid as will fit in a quart bag.

WHAT the FUCK is up with that?

Although variously phrased, Benjamin Franklin said, "any society that would sacrifice liberty to gain security deserves neither and will lose both."

The wording I consider most accurate is more "wordy", but it says the same thing.

[Xithras]

27. Without.

The TSA has proven its inability to actually accomplish any goal other than harass law abiding passengers with pornoscanners, massive lines, shitty attitudes, and perverted grope and feels. In spite of this daily and increasing harassment of the American public, we're still regularly peppered with stories of people getting weapons onto aircraft. They're good at bugging little old ladies and massaging the testicles of six year olds, but they seem utterly incapable of actually SECURING anything.

Fire them all and abolish the TSA. The federal government would be more effective if it simply set minimum security standards, put together a smaller policing agency to continually test them, and fined the hell out of airports that weren't abiding by them.

[spin]

29. Without. (n/t)

[guardian]

32. without it. n/t