tsa strip serch!!!

[scottmandue]

Also, no one is going to dismantle the TSA no matter how ineffective and irritating they are. Why? Because the enormous liability if something goes wrong afterward.

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by Superman

What administration is responsible for creating the largest and most inept federal agency?

FDR's administration?

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Superman

What administration is responsible for creating the largest and most inept federal agency? Oh yeah.......

Jimmy Carter

[Brando]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Jimmy Carter

Beat me to it...

[MRM]

According to the graphic above, we've spent $60 billion on the TSA alone, at a rate of $7 billion a year, not including the costs associated with the lost time, efficiency and damage to the airlines. In comparison, the World Trade Centers were insured for $5 billion. Almost three thousand people died, with 9/11 Trust Fund payments averaging about $2.5 million per person. About 12,000 were injured; I don't have any cost figures for them, but let's say a million dollars a piece. So we have $5 billion in property damage, $7.5 billion in death and 1.2 billion in injury benefits, and let’s say another billion dollars in damage to the Pentagon, first responders, etc. So where are we, about 15 billion dollars for the direct economic impact of the 9/11 attacks in terms of personal injury, death and property damage? Someone check my math.

In other words, we spend so much on the TSA, that we could completely pay for a 9/11 disaster every other year.

This is how terrorists win. They spend about a half million dollars causing us $15 billion in direct damages, which goaded us into spending additional trillions to avoid another disaster. With that level of spending goes an assumption that we should surrender both our treasure and personal freedoms to ensure it never happens again until we've spent so much that we go bankrupt and we surrender so many freedoms that we live under the same kind of totalitarian state we were fighting to prevent.

[lane912]

Originally Posted by MRM

According to the graphic above, we've spent $60 billion on the TSA alone, at a rate of $7 billion a year, not including the costs associated with the lost time, efficiency and damage to the airlines. In comparison, the World Trade Centers were insured for $5 billion. Almost three thousand people died, with 9/11 Trust Fund payments averaging about $2.5 million per person. About 12,000 were injured; I don't have any cost figures for them, but let's say a million dollars a piece. So we have $5 billion in property damage, $7.5 billion in death and 1.2 billion in injury benefits, and let’s say another billion dollars in damage to the Pentagon, first responders, etc. So where are we, about 15 billion dollars for the direct economic impact of the 9/11 attacks in terms of personal injury, death and property damage? Someone check my math.

In other words, we spend so much on the TSA, that we could completely pay for a 9/11 disaster every other year.

This is how terrorists win. They spend about a half million dollars causing us $15 billion in direct damages, which goaded us into spending additional trillions to avoid another disaster. With that level of spending goes an assumption that we should surrender both our treasure and personal freedoms to ensure it never happens again until we've spent so much that we go bankrupt and we surrender so many freedoms that we live under the same kind of totalitarian state we were fighting to prevent.

you forgot to add, terrorists have caused the image of that man standing naked to be burned into the minds of millions. for the terrorist that alone was worth the price of admission-

[widebody911]

The cynic in me says "follow the money" - who is making all of the money on all of this? I suspect it has nothing to do with security and everything to do with making money.

[Brando]

It is repeatedly called "security theater" for a reason. There is no true security benefit, only the inconvenience to those who would not commit such heinous acts.

[BE911SC]

Originally Posted by Superman

What administration is responsible for creating the largest and most inept federal agency? Oh yeah.......

Okay, I'll take the bait.

During the period of 100% Republican control of the national government during the 2000s, name one "liberal" federal department or "socialist" program they closed down. Education? Still there. Energy? Still there. Housing and Urban Development? Still there. Securities and Exchange? Still there (toothless). Internal Revenue? Still there. Medicare? Still there--and expanded greatly by a trillion-dollar unfunded prescription drug benefit passed during the 100% Republican-controlled period. Social Security? Still there. None of them "fixed" or eradicated. And again, we grew the size of government greatly during the 2000s via Homeland Security and the TSA. Last point, we have a solid 5-4 conservative Supreme Court. How come no abolishment of Roe vs. Wade? Where's the serious legal challenge to that? Nowhere I know of. Okay, one more. How about the government intrusion into our lives via the Patriot Act? We sure looked the other way when that one was enacted!

I know, I know, arguing with strangers on the Internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win you're still retarded.

Rady, set, GO!

[BE911SC]

Originally Posted by lane912

you forgot to add, terrorists have caused the image of that man standing naked to be burned into the minds of millions. for the terrorist that alone was worth the price of admission-

Yes, and whenever I stand in the TSA checkpoint and get patted-down by some empowered wage slave I say to myself the terrorists won. They forced us to change the way we live. They forced us to treat each other worse and they forced us to restrict our freedom through legislation such as the Patriot Act. If I were an Islamic fundamentalist crouched in front of a TV in the tribal regions of northern Afghanistan I would look at how American political reaction to 9/11 changed America and how America had been so easily lured into two incredibly expensive foreign wars and I'd say, "Hey, Achmed, I think we won." They spent maybe a few million while we've racked up at least what, 20 trillion in additional debt since 9/11.

Discuss.

[MRM]

It isn't useful to argue about who's more to blame. Everyone had to work very hard to get us into the bad situation we find ourselves now. Arguing about who's more responsible for the house burning down gets in the way of figuring out the best solution.

[island911]

amen.

[lane912]

it is easy to point the finger of blame
it requires thought, to change-

[mikester]

Originally Posted by MRM

It isn't useful to argue about who's more to blame. Everyone had to work very hard to get us into the bad situation we find ourselves now. Arguing about who's more responsible for the house burning down gets in the way of figuring out the best solution.

That is the most intelligent comment I have ever read here I think.

[jyl]

First, the direct costs of replacing the WTC and the monetary value of the lives lost was by far the least important aspect of 9/11. You can't possibly fail to understand that.

Second, we have discussed the TSA ad nauseum. One thing is always the same. No one here has ever come up with an "inexpensive, effective, and unobtrusive" way to stop terrorists from bringing airplane-destroying devices on flights - that works at a rate of one passenger every 30 seconds, 700 million passengers per year in the US alone. Not one of you complainers has the answer. All you have is complaints.

[island911]

Originally Posted by jyl

Second, we have discussed the TSA ad nauseum. One thing is always the same. No one here has ever come up with an "inexpensive, effective, and unobtrusive" way to stop terrorists from bringing airplane-destroying devices on flights - that works at a rate of one passenger every 30 seconds, 700 million passengers per year in the US alone. Not one of you complainers has the answer. All you have is complaints.

Really, you are going for the moral highground by whining about the whining?

Any way... No one needs to come up with an "inexpensive, effective, and unobtrusive" way to stop terrorists from bringing airplane-destroying devices on flights - when just a less expensive less obtrusive Solution would be a step in the right direction.

like. this expert (in the link)

Originally Posted by island911

Too bad we don't still have the old TSA admin Kip Hawley. He had a bit more balance.
good read & vid - Why Airport Security Is Broken—And How to Fix It - WSJ.com

[Lothar]

"inept federal agency"

Redundant

[MRM]

The direct cost of the 9/11 attacks were just a tiny portion of the total cost, mostly because we inflicted the additional damage to ourselves.

The solution to airport security that would prevent another 9/11 attack is simple and was partly implemented quickly. 9/11 happened because a band of hijackers were able to 1) Sneak onto airplanes with rudimentary tools that would pass a cursory security inspection; 2) Access the cockpit; and 3) Gain control of the airplane with the intent of using it as a flying bomb.

US anti-hijack doctrine had long been to surrender control of the airplane to the terrorists and wait out the siege, because until now the purpose of the hijacking had always been to use the plane and passengers as hostages, so it was easier to wait them out and nab the bad guys as they made their getaway.

So, in a fully rational world, we would respond to the incident that happened, specifically. If we did that, we would:

1) Change hijack response doctrine to not surrender control of the airplane under any circumstances.

2) Barricade cockpit doors to prevent access to the cockpit.

3) Place Air Marshalls on most flights interspersed with passengers in a way that they cannot be identified.

With those three steps there would never be another 9/11-style attack again and the ability of a terrorist to do significant harm even if a team of hijackers got inside the aircraft would be severely limited to the point that it would be a tragedy for those involved, but not a significant event in the scheme of things.

But if we did that, and only that, there wouldn't be enough disruption that people would feel a false sense of security because of all the activity they see as they try to board a plane.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by MRM

It isn't useful to argue about who's more to blame. Everyone had to work very hard to get us into the bad situation we find ourselves now. Arguing about who's more responsible for the house burning down gets in the way of figuring out the best solution.

I respectfully disagree.

That would be ignoring the entire last decade, where enourmous amounts of fraud in the billions and trillions occurred.
-Rumsfeld even admitted that 2.3 Trillion went "unaccounted for", but that is probably just the tip of the iceberg. At least he was honest which is rare these days.
-Then there is the Wall Street/Banking/Ratings involvement which was blatent and very public fraud.
-Then there is the Federal Reserve conduct, at the highest level, and central to our entire capitalist economic system....past and future.

The "Return-On-Investment" for recovering even part of those funds would pay for itself. When there is a blockade from any source, put them in jail and confiscate everything they have. Ignore the flunky who fear for their families. Follow the chain to its original source.

Doing this would put international faith back into the system of the American economic system and the value of the dollar.

[shbop]

Originally Posted by Superman

What administration is responsible for creating the largest and most inept federal agency? Oh yeah.......

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10988, which permitted collective bargaining by federal employees. and the rest, as Paul Harvey used to say, was history.