Key security agencies without leadership

Eight comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Smacky on December 29 at 11:18 a.m.

  Two things.

  1. Unlikely that appointing leaders to these positions would have had any affect on the latest attempt to blow up an airliner

  and

  2. Presidents have commonly let positions remain idle, for example, our last president delayed in appointing a terror czar and neglected to fill the cabinet charged with protecting our civil liberties.

  But by all means don’t let common sense prevent another mole hill from becoming a mountain to the lunatic fringe amongst us.

• 

  hmoffsuite on December 29 at 11:24 a.m.

  My sense is that Obama doesn’t take the terrorism threat as seriously as he might. Further, I think his desire to not ‘offend’ any racial, religious or ethnic groups might be a source of his caution. Obama likes to play nice and thinks everything will fall into place (ie Iran). Should, God forbid, we have another major terrorist attack on our soil, perhaps he will change his thinking. And, these guys should be treated as enemy combatants, not as private citizens breaking the law.

• 

  moscow_minidoka on December 29 at 11:25 a.m.

  Airports are the last place to worry about “security theater” (which is all it is: for show). If they make it to the airport, we’re toast, because none of that stuff actually prevents attacks - it just makes people feel like the government is actually doing something.

  The only way to stop these people is to catch them through law enforcement and intelligence before they even arrive at the airport.

  My money are on a “soft target” attack inside an airport. Can you imagine what would happen if a suicide bomber got in line for security and detonated him- or herself in the huge, snaking crowd of people at a place like Sea-Tac, where lines are very long when it’s busy?

  How would taking off your shoes stop that?

  I quit flying largely because of the baloney and nonsense that inconveniences all of us, but actually does nothing to make us safer.

• 

  Fixer on December 29 at 12:14 p.m.

  Appointment of these officials has little to no impact on the security processes.

  While I disagree that the TSA’s security processes are “security theater”, I will say that the organization does have its shortcomings. The agency is required to have passsengers undergo certain procedures, such as removing shoes, because the available technology doesn’t permit an alternative. Law enforcement and intelligence activities also have limitations - not the least of which is the need to preserve civil rights.

  MM, the “sucide bomber in a crowded airport scenario” is a valid threat, but is less likely than many other “soft” targets around a city. The most obvious counter to such a threat would be screening at the airport entrance which, although effective, would add to the inconvenience. The difficulty lies in striking the balance between good security and ease of access.

  To illustrate, if you were a passenger intending travel from Baghdad, Iraq, you would experience the following:

  One mile from terminal - Driver holds ID out the window to be checked by guard from a distance with spotting scope. Vehicle then proceeds to first search area where all passengers are patted down, and vehicle is searched by canine and physical search.

  Terminal front - All persons undergo patdown and all baggage is screened by canine and x-ray.

  Terminal - All persons undergo screening much the same as you would see at a U.S. airport.

  Boarding gate - All persons undergo screening again and all carryons are x-rayed.

  The security measures are quite effective; however, I just can’t imagine how detrimental such a process might be to the U.S. commerical aviation business.

• 

  tjh on December 29 at 12:14 p.m.

  From the article: Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has placed a hold on the president’s choice to head the TSA over the senator’s concern that the new leader would let TSA screeners join a labor union.

  The party of no needs to let teh Administration get on with the business of the country.

• 

  empyrius on December 29 at 12:28 p.m.

  If the terrorists were going for high body counts they would have crashed into three Saturday or Sunday football games.

  Randomly blowing up bunches of people is not the terrorist’s ideal, blowing up our bastions of imperial capitalism is; like, the Pentagon, the White House, the, yes, World Trade Center, and of course the American forces that are “stationed” in virtually every nation on this planet, especially the Middle East, literal bastions of empire are they . . .

  A group of cave-dwelling (and mountain apparently: har har har har) dead-enders can hardly match America’s military might; so they do with what little they have to fight with, and they are doing pretty good with not having an air force, body armor, drone bombs, three aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf, etc.

  I’ll always root for the righteous underdog! If the Israelites had given up in the face of hopeless odds, we would not even have monotheistic “God(s)” to claim is on our side!!!

  And then that all these wars are about money, oil, and empire would be irrefutable, but the American people never let facts get in the way of their beliefs!

  To all things comes an end . . .

• 

  scootermom on December 29 at 3:21 p.m.

  Idaho doesn’t have a new US Attorney, either.

  Still waiting on that appointment ….

• 

  spokelooneh on December 30 at 12:00 a.m.

  “Scootermom on December 29 at 3:21 p.m.

  Idaho doesn’t have a new US Attorney, either.

  Still waiting on that appointment ….”

  Usually the state’s Congressional delegation, with or without minority party support, sends the Attorney General a list of names.

  Has that been done?

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic