You won't believe I learned about the TSA, Trasnportation Security Administration

For some reason, there seems to be reluctance in the US to have armed LE show automatic weapons. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Interesting! I would think it would be the converse of that (i.e. UK being reluctant) given police generally don't carry guns in England. I am much more aware of the firepower in UK airports as a result because it is so unusual to see them (police) carying weapons. The other thing I have noticed in England...people are generally happy to approach an officer in the street etc and ask for help with something. In the airport not so. They are left alone. There is a strong sense that you are interrupting them doing their job (they do look intense) if you approach. I know I'd be reluctant. Even though they frequently stand in pairs they rarely speak to one another. It is sort of a given that they are off limits.

C x

Interesting! I would think it would be the converse of that (i.e. UK being reluctant) given police generally don't carry guns in England. I am much more aware of the firepower in UK airports as a result because it is so unusual to see them (police) carying weapons. The other thing I have noticed in England...people are generally happy to approach an officer in the street etc and ask for help with something. In the airport not so. They are left alone. There is a strong sense that you are interrupting them doing their job (they do look intense) if you approach. I know I'd be reluctant. Even though they frequently stand in pairs they rarely speak to one another. It is sort of a given that they are off limits.

C x Originally Posted by Camille

I think the bobbies have a whole different tradition. It's probably borne out by the UK's murder rate, which, I believe is very low. And, if I remember correctly, there's no capital punishment. That's left to barbarian countries, like Texas.

I know this thread is about TSA and what could be done to improve the screening process. When 9-11 happened I was working in the Atlanta airport. So I went through the almost daily changes in security. What a pain.

So much attention has been given to making sure that passengers don't get anything on the plane, but what about the other side of the airport. I've always wondered about the possibilities of something getting planted on the plane by a person that cleans or restocks the plane. I used to go into areas of the airport that I didn't have clearance for. I'm sure many other people do the same.

For some reason, there seems to be reluctance in the US to have armed LE show automatic weapons. I don't know if they exist behind closed doors, or if they're afraid if they were carried, someone would grab one and do a lot of damage to innocent persons. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

FYI - the firearms normally carried by the UK police are not fully automatic. The UK has a big aversion to the appearance of excessive force in their police activities. They don't like guns much at all, and fully automatic weapons are tightly controlled.

Airport officers are typically issued a Glock 17 9mm pistol and a single-shot version of the Heckler & Koch MP5 9mm rifle that's specially modified for police use. They also have access to the Heckler & Koch G36C sub-machine gun, but it's only given out during special operations.

In practice they carry the rifle to A) look scary, and B) give them some extra stopping power over the Glock pistol round.

Back in the days of "the Troubles" the IRA was known to conduct operations wearing home-made body armor that was resistant to standard pistol rounds. The UK police starting carrying small carbines like the MP5 to give them more "umph" over the pistol.

Now days the "look scary" part is more the issue. The MP5 may look like a big, bad assault rifle, but it's really not much more than a glorified pistol. They carry the rifles mostly to give people a greater sense of security. In real terms the MP5 doesn't do all that much that the Glock doesn't when you're talking about indoor, close-quarter actions. In fact, some UK police actually complain about carrying the MP5 as they think the rifle is just added weight and that the Glock is more reliable, which it probably is.

AFAIK, the only regular UK police units that are issued fully automatic weapons are the dedicated anti-terrorism units and the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection units. Even the "SWAT" teams in the UK don't carry full auto rifles unless they have an anti-terrorism unit attached to them. Even then, these units are required to obtain special permission to use the full autos. They cannot normally carry them on regular duty.

The only exception to these rules I know of is a special force called the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. This unit is charged with guarding civilian nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities. They use a wide variety of very, very nasty guns - including rapid-fire cannons - for rather obvious reasons.

At the airport, though, it's mostly about flying the flag. The rifles are out because (the politicians believe) people feel safer seeing a "heavily armed" police force on duty. In reality the rifle doesn't give them much that a US police officer doesn't have carrying his standard issue sidearm.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Although intimidating at first look, the G36C fires the 5.56mm round. The round is not designed for stopping. It is a tumbling round. Once inside, after a center mass impact, it bounces around a bit causing massive internal injuries. The damage is not enough to stop on impact rather it's designed to keep the intended target alive, thereby creating 2 less combatants when your partner has to pick you up to carry you to safety. The .45cal is truly a stopping round.

IMHO, the administration under Bush never saw a private corporation contract to do government business that it didn't like. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

W was just trying to save you money. Recent studies have shown that the controlling for other factors, federal employees earn approximately 30 percent to 40 percent more in total compensation (wages and benefits) than comparable private-sector workers. The "profit margin" on most government jobs are about 5%. Private contractors are a bargain.

But seriously I have the same concern about security for vendors and employees. If fact I think most "doomsday" scenarios involve some sort of teamwork between a passenger and food service, etc.

I know that blowing up an airplane still has the maximum dramatic effect, but I still can't believe the relative lack of security in other areas of public transportation. How difficult would it be to walk on to a city train or bus at rush hour, leave a bag with a bomb on it under your seat, exit the train & detonate it? (I don't think I'm sharing any secrets here...)

I know this thread is about TSA and what could be done to improve the screening process. When 9-11 happened I was working in the Atlanta airport. So I went through the almost daily changes in security. What a pain.

So much attention has been given to making sure that passengers don't get anything on the plane, but what about the other side of the airport. I've always wondered about the possibilities of something getting planted on the plane by a person that cleans or restocks the plane. I used to go into areas of the airport that I didn't have security for. I'm sure many other people do the same. Originally Posted by Ansley

Or chemical plants that are not properly defended, or ports of entry for ships, or airport perimeters that have to be relatively easy to breach.

Although intimidating at first look, the G36C fires the 5.56mm round. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Yep. They use it for its size. They give it out for VIP protection and other plain clothes ops where they need to conceal it.

They typically train on it as a suppression weapon. Two or three officers will use the G36 to lay down tandom bursts of suppressive fire while the rest get the VIP out of the scene. Their cops don't like the weapon for that reason. Getting handed a G36 means you're the one who gets to stay behind and get shot at while everybody else runs away. Not the most attractive assignment.

I agree that the higher grain pistol rounds are the preferred choice in practical terms. The problem is that the general public can't tell the difference between a pistol chambered for .25ACP or 10mm when they see it strapped to a cop. They can see the difference between the Glock and the MP5 - even if there isn't much real difference in terms of effectiveness given the limitations put on the H&K.

OMG DFW! Do you and I actually have something in common we can talk about without disagreeing?!?!?!?

Cheers,
Mazo.

or ports of entry for ships Originally Posted by discreetgent

The ports are actually in better shape than people think because the security process is more intelligent. I interviewed a guy that headed up global logistics for a major importer. He explained that TSA (or customs or whoever does it) go through a process of certifying all of the transshipment links. The shipper, the location, the cargo, the manufacturer, etc. Each point in the process is evaluated for risk on an ongoing basis (e.g., does the manufacturer in SE Asia have a secure loading area where the custom seals are applied, are they a known quantity, how long have they worked with the importer, etc.) all of these evaluations go into a score. Each shipment is then evaluated for its total risk score. The obvious ones are waived through (e.g., an IBM shipment, via established carriers, to its warehouse in San Diego). Any shipments that they are not sure of are subject to some level of checking with the severity increasing with the risk. Essentially it is profiling of cargo. Even stuff that is 100% certain is subject to a random screen.

I doubt it is perfect, but it is much more efficient and effective than the security theater that goes on in airports.

FYI - the firearms normally carried by the UK police are not fully automatic. The UK has a big aversion to the appearance of excessive force in their police activities. They don't like guns much at all, and fully automatic weapons are tightly controlled.

Airport officers are typically issued a Glock 17 9mm pistol and a single-shot version of the Heckler & Koch MP5 9mm rifle that's specially modified for police use. They also have access to the Heckler & Koch G36C sub-machine gun, but it's only given out during special operations.

In practice they carry the rifle to A) look scary, and B) give them some extra stopping power over the Glock pistol round.

Back in the days of "the Troubles" the IRA was known to conduct operations wearing home-made body armor that was resistant to standard pistol rounds. The UK police starting carrying small carbines like the MP5 to give them more "umph" over the pistol.

Now days the "look scary" part is more the issue. The MP5 may look like a big, bad assault rifle, but it's really not much more than a glorified pistol. They carry the rifles mostly to give people a greater sense of security. In real terms the MP5 doesn't do all that much that the Glock doesn't when you're talking about indoor, close-quarter actions. In fact, some UK police actually complain about carrying the MP5 as they think the rifle is just added weight and that the Glock is more reliable, which it probably is.

AFAIK, the only regular UK police units that are issued fully automatic weapons are the dedicated anti-terrorism units and the Royalty and Diplomatic Protection units. Even the "SWAT" teams in the UK don't carry full auto rifles unless they have an anti-terrorism unit attached to them. Even then, these units are required to obtain special permission to use the full autos. They cannot normally carry them on regular duty.

The only exception to these rules I know of is a special force called the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. This unit is charged with guarding civilian nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities. They use a wide variety of very, very nasty guns - including rapid-fire cannons - for rather obvious reasons.

At the airport, though, it's mostly about flying the flag. The rifles are out because (the politicians believe) people feel safer seeing a "heavily armed" police force on duty. In reality the rifle doesn't give them much that a US police officer doesn't have carrying his standard issue sidearm.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

So you've just concluded what I said which is it works..and it works because people are not used to seeing firearms. Btw...the SAS, MI5 and 6 have some pretty nasty weapons to work with. That I know for an absolute fact, firsthand. I should damn well think they do too.

So you've just concluded what I said which is it works..and it works because people are not used to seeing firearms. Btw...the SAS, MI5 and 6 have some pretty nasty weapons to work with. That I know for an absolute fact, firsthand. I should damn well think they do too. Originally Posted by Camille

Wrong. It may deter the average citizen, but not the terrorist.

The same as gun laws deter law-abiding citizens but not the criminals....

So you've just concluded what I said which is it works..and it works because people are not used to seeing firearms. Originally Posted by Camille

I think it probably does work to reassure the public about their safety. In that sense I think that it's beneficial. You're absolutely correct about that.

Whether or not it does anything to deter terrorist threat is a completely different matter. In this case I have to say that it doesn't do much at all - and some people think some of the UK policies actually degrade security to some degree.

One thing that is abundantly clear is that terrorists have even more access to the info about security policy than you're getting reading this board. They pretty much know what firepower everybody has and the guidelines set forth for using it. If they want to conduct an outright bullets and grenade attack they won't be stopped by police officers carrying big scary guns.

Btw...the SAS, MI5 and 6 have some pretty nasty weapons to work with. That I know for an absolute fact, firsthand. I should damn well think they do too.

And here's where there's a BIG difference between the US and UK.

In the US it's very, very difficult to involve military units in any sort of police action. There are laws that allow it on an emergency basis, but in general you can't ring up the local US army base and ask them to send over a platoon to back up your police force. Best you can do in the US is a SWAT team or other such special unit which may or may not have the weapons and training needed to do the job.

That's not the case in the UK - especially when it comes to airports. If there's a serious problem at a UK airport and the locals can't handle it they can call in a Special Project Team from the SAS who will put some serious firepower and training on the job. We don't have anything close to that in the US - at least not at civilian airports that aren't shared with a military base.* US military forces will only get involved under certain defined circumstances.

So maybe the show of force in the UK does say something to the bad guys. Maybe it serves to remind them that there's an SAS team waiting behind that street cop with a rifle. Not sure how effective that really is, but it's their system and they believe it works.

Cheers,
Mazo.

*One example of a US airport where you will get a military response is Albuquerque Intl. That facility is partially shared with Kirtland Air Force Base and sits about five miles from the Kirtland Underground Munitions Storage Complex. This is an underground bunker that houses a good chunk of the country's nuclear arsenal. Anything that even smells like a terrorist attack at ABQ gets a military response of some level. This is one airport where you DON'T take the chance of pissing off the TSA.

In response to Rudy's question...what exactly do the new scanners do that up the security? In other words, what are they picking up that the old scanners don't that is SO critical? Clearly not metallic elements. Originally Posted by Camille

That is the selling point of the scanners. They can see nonmetallic objects.

I'm guessing refusing a scan and being passed over for a patdown isn't go to fly. Originally Posted by Camille

If enough people ask for it, then it will have to. What bugs me is that those asking for a patdown are probably going to be marked as suspicious. However, if everyone does it, then they would have to stop this insanity.

Now is it because a patdown isn't going to find things like swallowed balloons of drugs or other illicit compounds yet a scanner will? Originally Posted by Camille

The scanner does not check the body cavities. So a terrorist could hide explosives in an orifice. In fact, there is a big disagreement over whether the scanner would have caught the underwear bomber.

TTH says that he is content to let the experts handle it, but the experts let the shoe bomber and underwear bomber through and allowed 9-11 to occur.

What stopped both these attacks and part of the 9-11 plot was a well informed public. Part of my frustration was that I was asking why I was being searched after I had passed through the scanner. No one would tell me anything, and that really pissed me off as much as anything.

So I researched why and think the scrotal pat down was done in part to look for underwear explosives. This pretty much shows to me that the TSA is always a step behind the terrorists.

After the shoe bomber gets on the plane, then the TSA started checking shoes. After the plot using liquid explosives in London was foiled, then the TSA bans liquids. Now, they start searching for underwear explosives.

Does it take that much imagination to see that the next bomber is not going to use his underwear or his shoes to attack?

What the TSA is doing makes no sense if you think that they are concerned about public safety. It makes perfect sense if the TSA is concerned about covering their asses from lawsuits. For some bizarre reason, ignorance is seen as a virtue in a civil case.

And the cancer issue from these machines isn't the slam dunk the TSA says it is. There is some controversy there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/health/09scanner.html

The health effect of small doses of radiation is not observed, but inferred from the visible effects of higher doses. Dr. Makhijani said that if a billion passengers were screened with the dose assumed by the radiation protection council, that would mean 10 more cancer deaths a year.

Those deaths would represent only a tiny increment over the existing cancer rate, he said, just as the extra dose was a tiny fraction of the natural background dose of radiation people get from everyday exposures, but he added that they should still be considered.

Edward Lyman, a nuclear expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that the additional deaths would be indistinguishable from cancers resulting from other causes. But he said, “Just because they can’t be attributed in an epidemiology study to the additional radiation, it doesn’t mean they’re not there.”

http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/07/0...a-cancer-risk/

He questions whether the machines might pose a risk for skin cancer in certain groups including children.

Brenner tells the London Telegraph that while an individual's risk is "very low," there is statistically cause for concern.

"If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk," Brenner says. "The population risk has the potential to be significant."

In about 2004, Annie Jacobson did a series of articles about a flight from Detroit to LAX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwe...nes_Flight_327

I read the stories when they were first published.

As noted, Snopes says it is false, but they are basing the opinion on what they were fed by the government (TSA-FAA).