Four Years Ago, Some Patriot Dropped an Epic Line on a Call With...
DK Metcalf Just Lost a Lot of Money for Punching a Detroit Lion's...
Merry Christmas, Over a Million More Files Potentially Related to the Epstein Case...
Supreme Court Ruled on Trump's Use of National Guard In This Blue State
Bari Weiss Is Everything Today’s Journalists Hate
Another Left-Wing Judge Just Decided He's Got More Authority Than President Trump
Despite No Evidence, This USAID Cuts Narrative Has Taken Hold
'The President Can't Do Everything:' Sen. Kennedy Calls on Senate to Use Reconciliation
Australia Just Admitted the Truth: You Can’t Have ‘Multiculturalism’ and Free Speech
Popular Neo-Nazi to Campaign Against Vivek Ramaswamy in Ohio Gubernatorial Race
Stephen Miller Blasts CBS for Sympathizing With Criminal Illegal Immigrants
Federal Judge Blocks California Policy Forcing Schools to Hide Gender Transitions From Par...
98 Minnesota Mayors Warn of Fiscal Fallout After State Spends $18 Billion Surplus
ICE Agents Fired at Incoming Van in Maryland
Federal Judge Rules That Michigan Cannot Disrupt International Line 5 Pipeline
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