Oh, So That's Why a Utah Supreme Court Judge Resigned
This One Text Message From a House Dem About the VA Map Being...
The Dems' VA Map Got Trashed by the State Supreme Court...and They're Not...
Kathy Hochul Gets Torn to Pieces Over Her 'Ghost Gun' Nonsense
NY Times Struggles With Court Rulings, Discrimination, and a Complaint by an Anonymous...
Gavin Newsom Is So Serious About Cracking Down on Crime, He's Doing This...
Bernie Sanders Attacks Google Founder and It's Pathetic
New York Turns Blind Eye to Crazy Man Terrorizing Bronx Apartment Building
As People Worry About the Hantavirus, Some Recall This Scary Story Out of...
Woman Who Led Police on Multi-State Chase Learns the Hard Way She's Going...
Victor Davis Hanson Reveals How Democrats Plan to Hold On to Power
The Future of LA: Watch This Mayoral Candidate Blame a Company For Making...
Rhode Island Man Charged With Using Identities of 18 People — Some Deceased...
Freedom, Not Planning, Made America an Innovation Superpower
Trump Administration Releases Giant Haul of UFO Files
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