In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Mineta Strikes Again
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Mineta Strikes Again
Notra Trulock
July 10, 2002
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has made another controversial decision that seems to place politics and political correctness above national security.
Mineta, President Bush's only Democrat in the Cabinet and a holdover from the Clinton administration, has steadfastly opposed ethnic profiling as a tool in airport security screening. He has described it as "surrendering to actions of hate and discrimination." So grandmothers and nuns get frisked, while young Arab males sail through security.
He then blocked efforts to arm airline pilots, but left it to the White House to express the administration's fear of "guns loose on airplanes." Mineta and the administration prefer more reliance on federal sky marshals, stronger cockpit doors and better screening. But that seems hollow in light of recent undercover tests that found that fake weapons, knives and explosives got by airport security screeners much of the time.
At the Los Angeles airport, scene of the recent terrorist attack at an El Al ticket counter, such weapons passed through security undetected 41 percent of the time. Given the administration's policy on shooting down hijacked airplanes, it seems that Mineta would prefer having an F-16 shoot down a fully loaded airliner rather than permit pilots to defend their cockpit.
Mineta's opponents now accuse him of playing politics with the nation's airport security screening program. Under the new Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the feds are slated to take over airport security by next November.
Congressional Republicans, however, inserted a measure that established a private security screening pilot program to test whether contract security companies could match the levels of performance required for the federalized force. That program, run by the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA), is to be tested at a Category X airport, the largest or "most at risk" airports in the country, and other smaller airports around the country.
When first announced, New York's JFK was the only Category X airport to apply. Congressman Gary Ackerman, whose district encompasses JFK Airport and the New York Port Authority, proposed using retired New York City police and other federal, state and local law enforcement officers as airport security screeners. Retired multilingual officers, former detectives and other law enforcement professionals had already been lined up.
But according to a press spokesman for Rep. Ackerman, midway through the application process, the TSA rejected JFK's proposal and required the airport to re-apply. On June 18, it announced the selection of five airports to participate in the pilot program, but only one Category X location.
JFK's application was rejected in favor of San Francisco, although TSA provided no information on the selection criteria other than claiming that San Francisco offered the best proposal and could meet the deadlines for starting the program. Mineta has yet to respond to Ackerman's letter and phone calls requesting a more detailed explanation.
Opponents of Mineta's decision suspect that local politics were the deciding factor in the selection of San Francisco. The San Jose Mercury reported in May that Mineta was under intense pressure from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and Bay Area civil rights activists to preserve security screening jobs of nearly 800 employees at the San Francisco airport. The new act requires screeners to be U.S. citizens and the private security firms to be U.S.-owned.
Bay area activists are reported to have said they consider the congressional mandates to be "a serious action against our immigrants and their civil rights." They accused Mineta, who represented the South Bay area in Congress, of not doing enough to help the predominantly Filipino employees of the firm that currently holds the screening contract at the airport. Labor activists threatened to "paralyze the airports" if the legislation is not altered.
After the decision was announced, the airport promptly declared that it would retain the current security firm and most of the current screeners. But that would violate the new statute since the firm responsible for airport screening, Huntleigh USA Corp., is Dutch-owned. Huntleigh assumed the contract after Argenbright Security was fired in the aftermath of a security incident in February.
Mineta got around the citizenship requirement by giving the screeners until November to apply for U.S. citizenship.
Local union officials believe that even that deadline will be extended. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has introduced legislation that would extend the deadline for obtaining citizenship for the Filipino workers.
Mineta's spokesman rejects allegations of political pressure as "ridiculous." That's a word that comes up frequently in connection with the "most visible secretary" in the history of the Transportation Department. Former Congressman Robert K. Dornan says that Mineta's opposition to arming pilots and profiling in airport security screening is "in defiance of common sense and offensively ridiculous."
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/7/9/184337
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Notra Trulock
July 10, 2002
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has made another controversial decision that seems to place politics and political correctness above national security.
Mineta, President Bush's only Democrat in the Cabinet and a holdover from the Clinton administration, has steadfastly opposed ethnic profiling as a tool in airport security screening. He has described it as "surrendering to actions of hate and discrimination." So grandmothers and nuns get frisked, while young Arab males sail through security.
He then blocked efforts to arm airline pilots, but left it to the White House to express the administration's fear of "guns loose on airplanes." Mineta and the administration prefer more reliance on federal sky marshals, stronger cockpit doors and better screening. But that seems hollow in light of recent undercover tests that found that fake weapons, knives and explosives got by airport security screeners much of the time.
At the Los Angeles airport, scene of the recent terrorist attack at an El Al ticket counter, such weapons passed through security undetected 41 percent of the time. Given the administration's policy on shooting down hijacked airplanes, it seems that Mineta would prefer having an F-16 shoot down a fully loaded airliner rather than permit pilots to defend their cockpit.
Mineta's opponents now accuse him of playing politics with the nation's airport security screening program. Under the new Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the feds are slated to take over airport security by next November.
Congressional Republicans, however, inserted a measure that established a private security screening pilot program to test whether contract security companies could match the levels of performance required for the federalized force. That program, run by the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA), is to be tested at a Category X airport, the largest or "most at risk" airports in the country, and other smaller airports around the country.
When first announced, New York's JFK was the only Category X airport to apply. Congressman Gary Ackerman, whose district encompasses JFK Airport and the New York Port Authority, proposed using retired New York City police and other federal, state and local law enforcement officers as airport security screeners. Retired multilingual officers, former detectives and other law enforcement professionals had already been lined up.
But according to a press spokesman for Rep. Ackerman, midway through the application process, the TSA rejected JFK's proposal and required the airport to re-apply. On June 18, it announced the selection of five airports to participate in the pilot program, but only one Category X location.
JFK's application was rejected in favor of San Francisco, although TSA provided no information on the selection criteria other than claiming that San Francisco offered the best proposal and could meet the deadlines for starting the program. Mineta has yet to respond to Ackerman's letter and phone calls requesting a more detailed explanation.
Opponents of Mineta's decision suspect that local politics were the deciding factor in the selection of San Francisco. The San Jose Mercury reported in May that Mineta was under intense pressure from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and Bay Area civil rights activists to preserve security screening jobs of nearly 800 employees at the San Francisco airport. The new act requires screeners to be U.S. citizens and the private security firms to be U.S.-owned.
Bay area activists are reported to have said they consider the congressional mandates to be "a serious action against our immigrants and their civil rights." They accused Mineta, who represented the South Bay area in Congress, of not doing enough to help the predominantly Filipino employees of the firm that currently holds the screening contract at the airport. Labor activists threatened to "paralyze the airports" if the legislation is not altered.
After the decision was announced, the airport promptly declared that it would retain the current security firm and most of the current screeners. But that would violate the new statute since the firm responsible for airport screening, Huntleigh USA Corp., is Dutch-owned. Huntleigh assumed the contract after Argenbright Security was fired in the aftermath of a security incident in February.
Mineta got around the citizenship requirement by giving the screeners until November to apply for U.S. citizenship.
Local union officials believe that even that deadline will be extended. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has introduced legislation that would extend the deadline for obtaining citizenship for the Filipino workers.
Mineta's spokesman rejects allegations of political pressure as "ridiculous." That's a word that comes up frequently in connection with the "most visible secretary" in the history of the Transportation Department. Former Congressman Robert K. Dornan says that Mineta's opposition to arming pilots and profiling in airport security screening is "in defiance of common sense and offensively ridiculous."
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/7/9/184337
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com
Tuesday, July 9, 2002
Capitol Hill -- The House of Representatives will consider legislation this week to force transportation security officials to begin arming commercial airline pilots. But supporters of guns in the cockpit say the bill is too weak to have any deterrent effect on terrorists and other potential hijackers.
The Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act purports to authorize "flight deck officers" on commercial airlines to carry firearms and to use force, including lethal force, when they judge the security of an aircraft is at risk.
The bill is cosponsored by House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, and House Aviation Subcommittee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., and has 54 additional cosponsors.
The measure is a direct response to Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and Undersecretary for Transportation Security John Magaw's decision not to arm pilots under a discretionary provision in the law that created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
"After a lot of consultation and realizing my experience in law enforcement, I will not authorize firearms in the cockpit," Magaw - who is the former director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, as well as the U.S. Secret Service - told the Senate Commerce Committee May 21.
The Young-Mica bill would require Magaw to establish a program to deputize qualified volunteer pilots of passenger aircraft as federal flight deck officers and to provide training, supervision, and equipment for those officers, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service.
But the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance (APSA), a group of pilots from all of the major airlines and pilots' unions, say the bill is flawed.
"It doesn't address the fundamental problem that we have in the existing law," said Capt. Tracy Price, chairman of APSA. "That fundamental problem is, it gives complete control over the structure of the armed pilots program and the decision as to whether pilots will be armed ultimately back to the TSA."
Price says there are four major deficiencies in the legislation, beginning with the lack of a deadline to begin arming pilots and a cap of only 2 percent of pilots being allowed to participate in the program.
Unprotected
"Ninety-eight percent of the flights would be completely unprotected and that would offer no deterrent at all against future terrorist attacks," he explained. "We think the number needs to be changed from 2 percent maximum to 20 percent minimum, and we think he needs to have those 20 percent minimum armed within six months."
Utilizing the existing FBI Cockpit Protection Program, Price believes that number of pilots could easily be trained within a six-month period.
APSA also opposes a provision in the Young-Mica bill that would restrict participation in the program to pilots with prior military or law enforcement experience. That would eliminate approximately 40 percent of the current pilot force, he said, again reducing the deterrent effect.
Not to mention, those pilots could also potentially skew the results of the initial evaluation of the program's safety and effectiveness.
The final flaw APSA finds with the bill again involves Magaw.
"At the end of the program, we need to have the president decide, not a mid-level bureaucrat that is trying to build an empire. That's what John Magaw is over at TSA," Price argued. "He's trying to build an empire of Federal Air Marshals and having armed pilots reduces the demand for the growth of his empire."
Price says he spoke with staff members handling the bill in Mica's office Monday morning.
"They're not saying 'no.' They're not saying they are opposed," he said. "They seem to want to do this. They don't disagree with us at all."
Opposition to the bill, according to Price, is limited.
"There's really only three groups: The TSA, the airlines, and terrorists," he claimed. "The TSA should rethink their position, as should the airlines, when they find themselves on the same sheet of music as the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11th."
In an attempt to address the concerns of the airlines, both House and Senate versions of the proposal include liability waivers, exempting the airlines and armed pilots from lawsuits in state and federal courts under almost all circumstances.
Only pilots could be held liable, and only if they show "gross negligence" or "willful disregard" for the safety of passengers or fellow crewmembers.
The bill will be considered by the full House as early as Wednesday. All of the suggestions Price made for changes to the bill could be offered as floor amendments at that time.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/9/52735.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
They're willing to go to war
You will be relieved to know that if you traveled on my airplane last week, I was not armed with nail clippers. My shoes were checked for explosives. And I was carrying only a spare tire under my cotton jacket.
I don't know about everybody else. As we now know, neither does airport security.
Fake or real handguns made their way through security four out of six times during tests at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport in June. They missed three out of six fake bombs. USA Today reported our failure rate was the worst of the 32 major airports tested.
Airport officials here were officially "disappointed." That is not the word I'd have chosen. I was "disappointed" that instead of a meal, they served Meow Mix on my flight. I was "terrified" to think that security is a gigantic sieve. And sincerely ticked off.
What is taking so long?
Cool under pressure
In May, the feds declined to allow commercial pilots to carry firearms. Guns scare me, and I wish there weren't so many of them floating around. But if anybody seems qualified to handle one, it would be a person we already know is really good with machinery. Somebody who is cool under pressure. Somebody who has been screened and tested. Somebody we trust to fly a gigantic hunk of metal filled with our valuable selves.
A pilot.
But instead of using what amounts to an existing army, the Transportation Security Administration plans is to hire and train more air marshals. This has to be not only time-consuming but expensive. Marc Feigenblatt's plan is cheaper, quicker and safer. A Boeing 727 captain and instructor, he helped organize the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, lobbying to "train, arm and deputize volunteer airline pilots."
A former Air Force pilot, he says polls show nearly three-fourths of all pilots want to carry a gun to work. "We'll go through training on our own time and buy our own weapon. My government trusted me in a single-person aircraft to carry a nuclear weapon, but they don't trust me to carry a handgun. We've been advised to use cans of soda and fire extinguishers."
He shows me some horrifying photos of weapons confiscated at airports around the world. A knife disguised as a pen. The pen, by the way, writes. A gun, which fires four rounds, looks just like a cell phone.
"No doubt these things would make their way through security," he says. "We want to be another layer of safety, to able to defend the aircraft once it gets in the air."
Bills pending in both the House and the Senate are expected to reach the floor next week. Capt. Feigenblatt calls the House bill "watered down" and the Senate bill "exactly what's needed." Both can be seen on the alliance's website, www.secure-skies.org.
Most air travelers have been patient about restrictions and inconvenience since 911. But by now most of us expect something better than color-coded alerts and cosmetic searches. We have been told that Osama, Inc. is at work on some new atrocity. We believe it.
We are at war, right?
So why is the federal government squeamish about using guns to fight it?
E-mail Laura at lpulfer@enquirer.com or call 768-8393.
http://enquirer.com/editions/2002/07/07/loc_pulfer_airline.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878