« Skeptics' Circle #6 • The Rants • Scalia Doesn't Deny Sodomizing His Wife »
Airport Screenings: Annoying, Invasive and Apparently Useless
2005.04.15 (Fri) 21:47
If you've flown in the United States any time in the recent past, chances are you've experienced at least some of the problems caused by the "enhanced security measures" put in place after 9-11. You know the drill — arriving early to the airport, extra time to check in, waddling in sock feet through the security checkpoint, hastily gathering all your crap together and hustling on to the boarding area. And let's not even talk about the nuisance of getting chosen for a "secondary screening" one or more times throughout the already cumbersome process. But hey, we're not complaining — it's all for our safety. And it could be worse.
Oh, right, it is worse. Under the guise of these security measures, perfectly innocent people have been subjected to public humiliation, theft of their belongings, and confiscation of items unrelated to the watch lists at the whim of screeners. But, hey, as long as it's working, right?
Two upcoming government reports will say the quality of screening at airports is no better now than before the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a House member who has been briefed on the contents.
Fuck! So we've accepted all of these hassles, humiliations, and restrictions, and nothing has changed? The AP report continues:
On Jan. 26, Homeland Security's acting inspector general, Richard Skinner, testified that "the ability of TSA screeners to stop prohibited items from being carried through the sterile areas of the airports fared no better than the performance of screeners prior to Sept. 11, 2001."
Skinner told the Senate Homeland Security Committee that the reasons the screeners failed undercover audits had to do with training, equipment, management and policy.
A year ago, Clark Kent Ervin, then-inspector general of Homeland Security, told lawmakers the TSA screeners and privately contracted airport workers "performed about the same, which is to say, equally poorly."
So, they're really close to being a top notch screening outfit, except for their training, equipment, management, and policies. Um, what does that leave as not needing improvement, their uniforms? It certainly isn't their attitudes....
Of course, this isn't new news. We read late last year about how screeners at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey have been underperforming (via ABC News):
NEWARK, N.J. Dec 15, 2004 — Baggage screeners at Newark Liberty International Airport spotted and then lost a fake bomb planted in luggage by a supervisor during a training exercise.
Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag, containing a fake bomb complete with wires, a detonator and a clock, made it onto an Amsterdam-bound flight. It was recovered by airport security officials in Amsterdam when the flight landed several hours later.
...
The incident at Newark Liberty International was only the latest embarrassment for screeners at one of the airports from which some of the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackers took off.
In October, The Star-Ledger of Newark reported that screeners missed one in four fake explosives and weapons in secret weekly tests conducted throughout the summer by TSA agents.
If any of this shit was actually working, and if we were therefore actually any safer, then we wouldn't mind the hassle (though the blatant abuses would still irk us, no doubt). But the fact that this shit is utterly useless makes it pretty hard to swallow.
— • —
[ Filed under: % Civil Liberties % Government & Politics ]
Comments (2)
Anton Sherwood, 2005.12.22 (Thu) 18:29 [Link] »
The Two Percent Company, 2005.12.22 (Thu) 22:49 [Link] »
— • —
|