The Only Way We Lose This Is If We Choose to Lose
Here's More Info on the Terror Attack at an Austin Bar
Rep. Celeste Maloy's FREE Act Looks to Drastically Improve Federal Permit Bureaucracy
Another Victim of the Rhode Island Trans Shooter Has Died
President Trump Held Medal of Honor Ceremony and Updated the Nation on Iran....
Salt Lake Tribune Runs Letter That Says Abortion Bans 'Lack Christian Charity'
Former Warren Campaign Worker Says the U.S. Must Be 'Abolished' to Atone for...
This Heartfelt Gesture From the Iranian Diaspora Shows Why President Trump Authorized Oper...
Leftist Gets Schooled About Why There's a Charlie Kirk Banner at the Department...
Iranian Military Rejects President Trump's Ultimatum to Lay Down Arms
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Updated Us on Operation Epic Fury
Anti-Gun RINO May Be Finally Going Down to Plucky YouTuber
Senator Adam Schiff Claims Iran Posed 'No Imminent Threat' to the United States
The Pentagon Says More Troops Are Being Deployed to Iran
Scott Jennings Explains Why Operation Epic Fury Isn't Another Forever War
Tipsheet

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

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

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement