U.S. Considers Airport Security Change (relaxing rules)

[maddezmom]

U.S. Considers Airport Security Change
Critics Warn Against Pittsburgh Plan to Admit Unticketed Visitors
By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 20, 2004; Page E02


The federal government is considering a proposal by Pittsburgh International Airport to allow visitors without airline tickets through airport security checkpoints, in a move that some experts said could signal a return to lax security rules in place before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The airport's proposal aims to boost lagging sales at the Pittsburgh airport's 100-store shopping center located beyond the security checkpoint. If approved by the Transportation Security Administration, a test program could allow travelers' friends and relatives to pass through security by this summer, according to an airport spokeswoman. The TSA would then evaluate the program and decide whether other airports could follow suit.

"We've committed to remaining open-minded and to having these discussions" with Pittsburgh officials, said TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis. Airport, airline and TSA representatives are meeting today in Pittsburgh to discuss whether the test project could improve the stores' finances without harming customer service or security. "Security continues to be our number one priority, so that's going to be our primary concern," Davis said.

Only ticketed passengers with photo identification are currently allowed through U.S. airport security checkpoints -- a condition implemented by the federal government after the 2001 attacks to improve security. TSA's new leader, David M. Stone, is eager to build cooperative relations with the airports and airlines and is considering loosening the rules.

~snip~
more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25892-2004Apr19.html

[booksenkatz]

1. Several things bug me about this

Look, it's either a genuine security concern, or it isn't. Obviously, it isn't, and never was, since it's so easy for them to snap their fingers and change the policy back to where it was pre-9/11. So it appears that the past 2+ years of strict security has all been cosmetic, and once the airport shops start whining about loss of revenue, my goodness, how quickly the charade of security gets dropped! As if Uncle Skeeter, who has come to see off Iva and Burl, really wants to stop and buy a $5 cup of coffee and $5 Cinnabon on his way back home, right?? Who in their right mind hangs out at the airport restaurant for any reason other than pure desperation? And the only people who want to buy overpriced "Denver" shot glasses or "Chicago" t-shirts are the travellers.

Frankly, this is one of the post-9/11 things I'd like to keep in place, because letting 5 more people come to the gate for every traveler is going to slow down the security check lines for those of us who have planes to catch! The fewer people you have going through the security lines, the better for me as a traveller. And the fewer human beings you have at the gate, I would think, mere layperson that I am, the better for everyone security-wise.

Funny how the right wingers get all misty-eyed and sentimental that cousin Tater can't hug cousin Tuffy at the gate WHEN THE SHOPS NEED REVENUE. Funny how MONEY trumps SECURITY.

What a firking joke.

[maddezmom]

2. but now we have a new task force for events

Federal task force to head event security
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 20, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned yesterday that the country is entering a period that will be ripe with potential targets for a high-profile terrorist attack and announced that he is forming a federal task force to coordinate security for them.

The next eight months be a "season that is rich with symbolic opportunities for the terrorists to try to shake our will," including the Democratic and Republican national conventions, the summer Olympics, several meetings of international organizations inside the United States, and traditional holiday periods, he said.

"With so many symbolic gatherings in the next few months, we must be aggressive," Ridge told a convention of news broadcasters in Las Vegas. "Special attention will be given to areas of concern such as rail and air security, hazardous materials shipments, chemical facilities, and the protection of the electrical grid, among others."

The announcement marked Ridge's boldest assertion to date of his mandate to collapse the barriers between government agencies in order to fight terrorism.
~snip~
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/20/to_head_event_security/

[booksenkatz]

4. Let me get this straight, maddezmom

According to Ridge, we're entering a very dangerous period, chock full of more terra possibilities than ever before. So what are we going to do to avert it? We're going to lower the security at airport terminals to pre-9/11 conditions.
:wtf:

Hmmm, I suppose it would be tinfoil hatty of me to suggest that they're lowering the security standard in order to um, let something hap--

Naw, they wouldn't do that. All they care about is our safety, right?

Oh. I feel so safe.

[maddezmom]

5. yup, I think we're on the same page

;)

[maddezmom]

6. don't forget the ports....

Ridge: private sector must help fund anti-terror effort

PORTLAND - By WILLIAM McCALL
PORTLAND - Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Monday the federal government cannot afford to pay for the increased security needed to protect U.S. ports from terrorists.

"We need to talk to the private sector," Ridge said. "We don't have enough public money to do everything that needs to be done."

Ports and shipping companies are facing a July 1 deadline to have security programs in place for their docks and vessels or face potential fines.
~snip~
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66029

but HLS just creates more task forces...that I'd guess we can't afford.

[booksenkatz]

7. >>PRIVATE SECTOR??<<

Criminy, if we can't afford to protect our own shores, our own citizens, then I s'pose we had no business starting a multi-billion dollar, endless war, huh?!

Now we have to ask the private sector to protect us. Let's have faith-based security and ask the churches to do their part, too, shall we?

Please excuse me while I pull my own head off.

[maddezmom]

11. speaking of ports:Italy seizes 'US-bound' arms haul

Italy seizes 'US-bound' arms haul

By Francis Kennedy
BBC correspondent in Rome


Police in southern Italy say they have seized a large illegal arms shipment from Romania destined for the US.
Customs officers in the port of Gioia Tauro, in Calabria, discovered 7,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles after noting irregularities in the documentation.

The cargo, estimated to be worth some 6m euros (£3.9m, $7.15m), was declared as arms for civilian, not military, use.

The weapons were discovered on board a ship flying a Turkish flag that had departed from a port in Romania.

An American company was reportedly due to receive the cargo
Italian customs police say the ship was bound for New York.

~snip~

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3642245.stm

[hang a left]

8. Well we would if we weren't spending every dime this country

has in Iraq.


"We don't have enough public money to do everything that needs to be done."

[No Mandate Here.]

3. Actually, Pittsburgh's airport

has a much welcomed policy that the stores are bound by their leases to charge the same prices they would charge anywhere else. The mall there is just like any other, without the big department stores. You pay $1.50 for the Seattle's Best or Au Bon Pain coffee and another buck and a half for the Cinnabon.

When the shuttles come in from the plane side of the airport (where the mall is), the people there to greet passemgers are like cattle in a too small pen- right alongside those waiting to go through security. If this changes, the amount of security time will increase substantially.

[spinbaby]

13. Good stores, too

Pittsburgh has airport shops and restaurants you actually want to visit--they used to have advertising that encouraged people to visit the airport just to shop. I would always take a trip through the Body Shop whenever I picked up someone from the airport. Can't do that anymore.

[w4rma]

9. Shops are normally on the unsecured side, I thought. (nt)

[booksenkatz]

10. Well, according to the article

they want to do this for the express purpose of helping the lagging sales of the mall at this particular airport, which is beyond the security checkpoint. Most airports I've been to have most of their shops beyond the checkpoint. I haven't been to all airports, of course. Nevertheless, I know of few people who want to drive to the airport and fight the parking lot madness in order to do a bit of shopping, know what I mean? Sure, it's convenient to have shops at the airport for those of us with planes to catch; but to forego security concerns in favor of revenue concerns just proves to me that the security concerns were cosmetic all along.

[maddezmom]

12. most of the shops are in the core, link:

http://www.pitairport.com/AirportGuideServlet

[Media_Lies_Daily]

14. So, how does this square up with all of the recent warnings about....

...potential new terrorist attacks?

LIHOP or MIHOP?