An Anti-ICE Activist Tried Interfering With an Arrest in California. Guess What Happened...
CNN Hosts Peddled a Lie About the Minneapolis ICE Shooting..and DHS Wasn't Gonna...
NYC Official Who Mocked Charlie Kirk's Death Is In Deep Trouble
Zohran Mamdani’s Exploitation of Black Voters Represents Everything I Hate About Democrats
Watch Tim Walz Make a Fool Out of Himself Yet Again
These Democrat States Are Declaring War on ICE
Putin Ally Threatens Nuclear War Against Europe If This Happens
No More Taxes Until the Fraud Stops
CNN Guest Tries Accusing ICE of Nazi Recruitment Tactics, Makes a Fool of...
Germany Finally Admits Trump Was Right About Energy
Border Czar Tom Homan Warns Anti-ICE Rhetoric Could Spark More Bloodshed
Gutfeld Eviscerates Jessica Tarlov for Defending Protesters Harassing ICE Agents
‘They Are Killing Their Own Children’: Iranian Commander’s Daughter Speaks Out Amid Nation...
Trump Threatens to Tariff Countries Opposing His Effort to Control Greenland
Pentagon Leaker Charged for Possessing Classified Documents on the Venezuela Raid
Tipsheet

TSA: Hey, Maybe We Just Shouldn't Screen Travelers At Smaller Airports

In one of the more mind-bogglingly bad ideas that has ever been presented, the TSA apparently proposed not screening travelers at smaller regional airports and instead screening them upon arrival in a bigger city. The idea is that not screening travelers would create a more "efficient" travel experience.

Advertisement

Perhaps unsurprisingly, members of Congress were not on the same page as the TSA and promptly shut down this idea.

But then Congress got wind of the proposal. And now the TSA is backing down after lawmakers denounced the idea as bizarre and even dangerous, especially following terrorist attacks such as the March bombings in Brussels.

“From a security standpoint, it makes no sense,” said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), who learned months ago that the TSA had refused to place screeners at a regional airport in his district. Instead, the agency suggested, it would screen the passengers after they landed at larger airports and before they boarded connecting flights.

The dispute represents yet another setback for the agency’s troubled efforts to adopt what advocates call a leaner, more “risk-based” security strategy in an era of flat-lined budgets.

Well, yeah. This is a terrible idea. As one congressman pointed out, there's no guarantee that the plane in question would even make it to its destination if passengers were not screened. Further, as we saw in Belgium, it's not just the airplanes that are the targets. There's no reason why a passenger couldn't smuggle a bomb through a small airport, and then detonate it at the security checkpoint at a larger airport--potentially killing far more people than would fit on a puddle jumper. The TSA's idea was an incredibly short-sighted one.

Advertisement

Related:

AIRPLANES TSA

It's even more head-scratching when one considers that the ringleader of the September 11 attack basically used an identical plan to slip through security. Mohammad Atta knew that the security at the small Portland International Jetport would be far less intense than at Boston's airport, and was able to breeze through without getting held up.

The TSA is supposed to protect Americans, but ridiculous proposals like these make it tough to trust them.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos