Protecting us from Terrorist attack?

our government hard at work ;-)

 

Interesting development, this really raises many questions?

 

Not sure the deal will go through now that its become a political issue. But there are a couple of things to consider.

The UAE is one of our allies. The big slam against them is that the 9/11 terrorists used the banking system there to launder money to finance the attacks, and one of the terrorists may have been from there. They are to the Arab world what the banking system in Switzerland is to the western world, so it was a natural to be abused. However, the UAE cooperated fully with the US in freezing the assets (or as much as their laws would allow).

But they are progressive, moderate, and have an economy that could very well evolve into a democratic capitalist society without a lot of loss of life. Human rights, while not up to the standard we enjoy, are better than in the rest of the Arab world.

So I'm not sure this will go through, but perhaps it should. Security at the ports should not rely on who is managing the non-security workers there.

 

supposedly UAE is one of the friendliest coutries to the US, would you allow any companies from there to buy our airports as well? those are private companies, so your assumption that if a private entity comes from a friendly nation there is no possibility of wrong doing, is a bit gullible. I wonder if the French were about to buy it, how much screaming would be there.

 

The French own quite a bit of American manufacturing companies. Its a world economy now in more ways than one. I don't object to French investment in America even though I object to some of their foreign policy decisions. They are still our allies.

I would have no problem with foreign investment of airports. Security at airports is not dependent on the owners of the airport. It is dependent on Federal law. I suspect ports are also. If not, they should be.

Other than anti-Arab sentiment, I'm not sure what the objection is. If we want to say that you simply can't trust any Arab as a matter of public policy, and codify that particular prejudice, I think you might have a hard time of it.

 

Security at airports was subcontracted to the lowest bidder pre-9/11, and AFAIK it still is. Sure works good when you sub out security to the lowest bidder. Notice how quickly the "mainstream" media dropped that hot potatoe?

 

last time I was flying out of Boston, I had a backpack full of camera gear (2 cameras, several lenses etc.). It went through the x-ray machine and they decided to check it for explosives. They opened it up and they swiped it for traces of explosives. I've been surrounded by 6 or 7 guys. One of the guys stuck the piece of swipe into the explosive detecting device but nothing was happening. So, I am standing there for 15min and finally some superior comes and asks what is going on. The guy doing the test says that he can't get any reading from the machine. The superior officer says "Didn't I tell you all that the machine hasn't been calibrated for 2 weeks now?, we are awaiting for a technician". Of course, I heard it all. Really made me feel so safe boarding the plane.

 

How about the latest news of a handful of Federal Air Marshals moonlighting as big time drug dealers? Um, think I'll drive next time!

 

You see a media conspiracy when the only thing evident is your ignorance of this topic.

Security at airports is now handled by the Federal Government, through the TSA (Transportation Security Administration), part of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Every airline ticket has a surcharge on it to help pay for this security. All civilian employees at the airport are subject to the direction of the TSA officers, even pilots and flight crew, who are subject to search. Airports must comply with the standards set by Congress, with implementation and enforcement by the DHS. This was done very soon after 9/11.

Security at the ports is also governed by the DHS. Security is separate from management or ownership.

There are rules governing foreign ownership of airlines, and some want that extended to include facilities like ports and airports. I don't think its necessary. The ports that are in question are TODAY operated by a British company, and its that British company that is being sold to a Dubai company.

 

Why do you think we bought a Prius? :lol:

 

Yes, and the agency immediately hired all of the low-paid contract workers who already HAD those jobs, only now they are higher-paid and impossible-to-fire federal workers. They even had to bend their own rules and hire NON-US CITIZENS to do the screening at airports like San Francisco International. But it was no problem to the U.S. Gov. They just fast-tracked the US citizenship of the workers so they wouldn't have to bend the rules anymore! Your tax dollars at work. Same "security", higher price, no accountability. Just like we all wanted.

 

You were being perved-upon. You should be grateful in a sexually harassed kind of way. <_<
They knew the machine didn't work.
If you were some hag, there may have been one guy - max.

 

I didn't know that, I suppose I should pay more attention to the news.

If true, IMHO that is *worse* than having the low-bidder subs. Scary.

 

Ok, I looked into this new TSA and am now very worried:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4428201.stm

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0903/092503w1.htm

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Pa...L20030304b.html

http://usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-0...screeners_x.htm

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...6972_tsa11.html

 

This is another one of those things that make me wonder if the bushies are out of their minds and completely incompetent or if they know exactly what they're doing but not telling us why. I can't wait to hear our stalwart cons tell us the real reason why the Bush administration would pull something like this and why they think it's a good idea.

 

I fly frequently, and I can tell you, the security is much better with the TSA personnel. My wife went through the screening process for a position at our local airport before dropping out (another job came through).

I'm sure there were cases like you cite, but they were not the norm. You have to measure the change overall, and whether or not we are progressing. And we are.

 

Its not true ... at least not at LAX, Burbank, Logan, Manchester, Kansas City, Orlando, Denver or Philadelphia. I flew into and out of these airports prior to 9/11, and still do. And I can tell you for a fact the TSA folks are vastly superior to the fat people in stretch pants that were manning the security stations before.

 

Airport security is an illusion. They have done only one thing to make us safer post 9/11 -- reinforced the cockpit doors and made a new rule, "no one gets in the cockpit, no matter what." That's the ONLY thing making air travel safer.

The whole "security checkpoint" thing is pure sideshow. It's only there to make people FEEL like they're safer. In fact, just after 9/11 many elected officials were more or less admitting this fact. They saw the biggest problem as lack of faith in the air travel system. They found out that the nastier they made the security gate, the "safer" people felt. So they cranked it up.

Are you safer because I can't take my pocket knife on the plane?