"Naked body" scanners

[Trip]

Thinking outside the box isn't creating new ways to detect old threats and old tactics. They are already well secured.

Like I said, Norm's tarmac access is one example. Airspace around airports is another. Those are all easier points to attack and surveil. They are the next "box cutters." The next attack won't be a frontal assault on our most secured areas. It will be a novel attack or less well defended attack. Heck, it's probably detrimental to fixate on the checkpoint while they flank our secure positions. "fix and flank" is a well-proven tactical strategy though usually the fixing force is provided by the attacker, not the defender. It will be a sad day when someone flys a cessna into a fully fueled and loaded 747 and destroys all those pretty scanners at the terminal. Or the food delivery has a bomb in it brought in by the illegal immigrant from Yemen that came in through Mexico. Or gets certified as a mechanic and hired by the airline and sabotages an aircraft. I am waiting for someone to say that's so far outside the box they never thought of it. Or just gets hired as a pilot like the Egyptair suicide crash into the ocean.

The most recent attacks we've seen are from U.S. citizens. Some were military including a grenade attack and the shooting at the base in Texas. "Outside the box" thinking from TSA's point of view would be that those people would get jobs at an airline. If the Major in Texas was a pilot instead of a Dr., do you think he would have any problem getting a job at an airline, getting qualified to fly armed and taking sole command of an airplane at a time and place of his choosing?

No, TSA is firmly entrenched "in the box." Other agencies fight "outside the box" and the money we spent on scanners would be better spent on those agencies. DEA, Border Patrol, etc, would be do much more with that money to stop terrorism than TSA.

Like what? Mike is right, the box cutters the 9-11 hijackers had were perfectly legal at the time. I used to routinely carry my pocket knife on flights until then. I seriously doubt a metal gun could have made it on board an aircraft even back then. Guns do a good job of setting off metal detectors all the time.

And the Norman example is class statement of how well TSA thinks outside the box. I still think they bought a bunch of hammers so everything looks like a nail now. In the meantime, there are all sorts of loose screws.

Well said.

Trip, I too definitely disagree with on your assessment of TSA. I see them another huge, self serving bureaucratic hog that's out of control. They have this cool equipment so they're going to use it and ignore other threats such as cargo and the other things Mike mentioned.

I also believe that the creation of TSA was a huge mistake based on a knee jerk reaction to 9-11. The private security people that allowed the 9-11 hijackers on the planes did nothing wrong at all, they were following all the rules laid down at the time. In fact, they were continuing to follow the new rules after 9-11 while TSA was being formed. There is NO evidence to show that they couldn't have continued to do so, it was just the silly idea that government could do a better job that the private sector. The difference is what I keep harping about, accountability. There is zero with TSA where airports had some control over local security firms that were hired. I wouldn't be shocked that more and more airports opt out of TSA as time goes by. A few such as Orlando have already started the process.

I thank God there are at least a few conservative congressmen who are seeing them for what they are. Although people here who have been critical of TSA have been accused of being liberal, liberals haven't hardly spoken out once against them that I've read, it's conservative politicians. And all in all, the liberal media is fine with TSA with the exception of just before the holidays and the threatened opt out. It's the fringe media that keeps abuses alive in the public mind. Although I do have to say that it was odd coincidence that a CNN reporter who was critical of TSA got his name on the no fly list. But we all know bureaucrats never get petty, do they?

I'm not going to continue this thread, take the last word.

Actually, I gave you the last word The rehashing of the same old tired Norm example and going over the same ground started with the post at the top of this embed, which is why I saw no point in further responding to them. When I said, "I obviously disagree," that was my sugar-coated way of saying we'll just have to agree to disagree

[MikeG]

You guys are going to get poor Norm so fired by repeating his name in conjunction with attack theory!

I wonder how many times his name has already been "keyed on" by "them"????

Who's Norm? Never heard of him.

[Trip]

Who's Norm? Never heard of him.

LOL, now that was funny, Mikey~

[Cat_Doc]

Who's Norm? Never heard of him.

Nice try, but everyone has heard of the Normster!

[cntryboy0531]

Nice try, but everyone has heard of the Normster!

So has TSA. He's the one they keep telling to stop showing up naked to the scanners.

[Piggy]

[scott715us]

I'm not going through the last 10 pages, but I'm kind of curious how many of you flew enough prior to 9/11 and after to make a valuable comparison between TSA and privately contracted security companies. Out in my neck of the woods, the private security used prior to 9/11 was bottom of the barrel low-bid contracted. Most of them couldn't even speak the English language and the screening was sub-par to say the least. Although I think some of TSA policies are, well, "out there," they have definitely done a better job in overall general screening at the checkpoint. I'm not getting into specifics, but we (LEOs) are still to this day being called to the checkpoint for discovery of plenty of weapons (including firearms).

I hope you guys are right about private security. I'm not aware of any airports near me that don't use TSA and I haven't flown through any non-TSA yet, but I have my concerns about contracted. Airports, malls, and many other companies/agencies still seem to use the low-bid process and you normally get what you pay for.

[Norm357]

Who the hell is Norm?

[MikeG]

I'm not going through the last 10 pages, but I'm kind of curious how many of you flew enough prior to 9/11 and after to make a valuable comparison between TSA and privately contracted security companies. Out in my neck of the woods, the private security used prior to 9/11 was bottom of the barrel low-bid contracted. Most of them couldn't even speak the English language and the screening was sub-par to say the least. Although I think some of TSA policies are, well, "out there," they have definitely done a better job in overall general screening at the checkpoint. I'm not getting into specifics, but we (LEOs) are still to this day being called to the checkpoint for discovery of plenty of weapons (including firearms).

I hope you guys are right about private security. I'm not aware of any airports near me that don't use TSA and I haven't flown through any non-TSA yet, but I have my concerns about contracted. Airports, malls, and many other companies/agencies still seem to use the low-bid process and you normally get what you pay for.

Before 9/11 it's no comparison. But the year between 9/11 and the formation of TSA, I think the level of screening and capability of the people are about the same. A lot of them were just hired by TSA. Probably the biggest improvement is the screening of checked luggage.

It would be interesting to see an assessment of having a a large org with set procedures and protocols and equipment vs. a bunch of smaller orgs with guidelines. Both would have their security strengths and weaknesses.

[fatboyjim154]

Who the hell is Norm?

He's a really nice guy, who drinks beer and leaves the odd pearl of wisdom when he visits.
His only fault is that he's too old to work a self loader.