So You Want To Federalize Airport Security?

Toogood Reports ^ | November 6, 2001 | Matt Barr

[Zeroisanumber]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

Checking for weapons or explosives at an airport concourse is not considered to be unreasonable search and thus not protected under the 4th.

[sonofagun]

There is NOTHING the government can do better and more cost effective than the private sector. Nothing.

The government won a couple of wars the we have been hard pressed to contract out.

[sonofagun]

They are NOT federal employees.

So we'd be less safe with Federal Marshalls manning the gates?

[NittanyLion]

That's a myth. Civil Service employees can and do get fired.

Not for incompetence - and that's the major issue here. I'm not worried about the guy making inappropriate comments who gets canned, I'm worried about the person that doesn't do their job, yet cannot be eliminated.

[honway]

The government won a couple of wars the we have been hard pressed to contract out.

Very good, but don't confuse them with the facts. You wouldn't want to prevent a political agenda from undermining what is good for the country. Priorities,man.

[scooter2]

Every commercial airport in the country is operated by some sort of "Port Authority" or its equivalent. Why not provide federal grant funding to hire more local (Port) Police Officers and let them conduct airport security? The FAA could establish the standards and let the locals be resposible for enforcement and compliance. I'm definately not in favor of federalizing airport security nor am I in favor of letting private security companies continue with thier minimum wage, poorly trained screeners doing (or not doing) the job.

[steve-b]

It is very hard to smuggle guns and other weapons onto an airplane. The terrorists involved in the 9-11 hijackings had obviously studied and planned how to take over those airplanes. They used seeming innocuous instruments such as box cutters. They used distractive techniques such as killing crewmembers at the rear of a plane to lure pilots into the cabin and allow their accomplices to then enter the cockpit.

Ultimately, the goblins will always find a way. The only real solution is to allow trustworthy people to go armed. There's room for argument as to whether this is best accomplished through expanding the Sky Marshall program, by allowing LEOs and CCW holders to carry on board, or by making it part of the "pre-cleared trustworthy passenger" program the airlines want, but there's just no way around that conclusion.

[Paleo-Con]

Isn't it odd that they complain that security workers are underpaid and then award contracts to the Lowest qualified bidders? The gov't does stuff no one in their right mind would do. If you needed a contract worker you would pay enough to get a good one.. Not our stupid gov't, and then they propose to fix the problem they created by doing it themselves..

[DLfromthedesert]

That's exactly what the Republican bill does. IMPROVE Federal standards over what was in place prior to the attacks, but NOT hire federal workers to do the job.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

The old saying from those of us who have worked for the Feds is; "It takes an "ACT OF CONGRESS" to fire a Federal Employee".

Those who support a Federal program, those who say they CAN be fired, and have been, aren't projecting the "norm" that happens in the REAL WORLD with regard to Federal Employee's.

HOWEVER,... I might support a Federal Employee Program **IF** there is a clause that they CAN BE DISMISSED IMMEDIATELY upon failing to do their duty!! HOWEVER,... The Unions are EXTREMELY savvy at getting around the RULES. So, we are left again, with "It takes an ACT OF CONGRESS to fire a Federal Employee".

So we are more inclined to go with Murkowski's Congressional bill. Have the FEDS oversee the employee's. Pay them better,.. but have stricter rules, and FIRE them if they don't do their job. Better training, remedial training,..etc.

[NittanyLion]

Ultimately, the goblins will always find a way. The only real solution is to allow trustworthy people to go armed. There's room for argument as to whether this is best accomplished through expanding the Sky Marshall program, by allowing LEOs and CCW holders to carry on board, or by making it part of the "pre-cleared trustworthy passenger" program the airlines want, but there's just no way around that conclusion.

Exactly.

[DLfromthedesert]

So more Federal Government intervention is good for the country? Where did all you liberals on this Forum come from?

[snorkeler]

I hope everyone has called their senator. It does precious little good to vent here but could do some good in your senator's ear...(or aid or poorsmuck who is answerng the phones cause they still keep track of how the calls are running re pro/con federalization)

FREEP THE SENATE

[Zeroisanumber]

Probably to fill the vaccum of posters who seem to have been vaped or otherwise left the forum recently.

[antidisestablishment]

Every policeman and fireman in this country is a civil service employee.

And what are the attrition rates? How many get fired for poor performance and how many go out on disability? What is the actual cost to the municipalities?

Every (EVERY) government position costs more than the comparable service in the private sector. Yes, some areas are rightly the domains of the government, however, this is not one of them. I can agree to some oversight and uniform standards, but federalization is plain dangerous.

[DLfromthedesert]

I have. Jon Kyl agrees with me, and McCain has his own agenda......promoting McCain.

[MamaLucci]

"Federal Marshalls" isn't the issue here, and you know it.
The idiots in the Senate are talking about FEDERALIZING
the $6.00 an hour employees already in these jobs.
Very stupid idea.

[snorkeler]

I can hardly express how tired I am of seeing McVain, everytime I turn on the tube. Mainly because he is always on the wrong side of the issue!!!

[Angelique]

I believe it was in the eighties that France and Britain tried to federalize this function, and it proved to be a disaster. Why? Perhaps a study about the failure is important, but not as important that it was failure.

I am very skeptical of any government project when someone such as Bill Clinton is elected into power. There can be federal guidelines, but there is not one scintilla of evidence that airport security is best handled by creating yet ANOTHER fed agency!

[DLfromthedesert]

How anyone who is for a "Free Republic" can also be for more centralized government is beyond me.