Some of you may recall my suggestion at the time this agency was created, that airports should be assessed for security needs considering such factors as: 1) Whether international flights terminate at the location. 2) Whether the airport as been the target (or rumored target) of an attack. 3) The volume of air traffic including both passenger and commercial flights. 4) The "propaganda value" of an attack at the airport.
When such an assessment was complete, the government could have then decided which airports most needed security enhancements, decide the kinds of physical and procedural security measures which would be most appropriate, and initiate changes beginning with the vulnerable airports. As far as I know, the TSA was established at all U.S. airports at virtually the same time, using the same security policies and procedures in all locations.
The result has been a cookie-cutter approach to airport security. Because one size fits all, an older female passenger flying from Dayton to Daytona passes through the same security protocol as a younger male passenger flying from Boston"s Logan airport to Dulles International in Washington, D.C. I never thought this made sense.
OK, I know what you're saying to yourself: "Where would the Detroit airport have fit into this security scheme"? On the second tier, of course. Detroit was not a "chosen" as a site for a terrorist attack in the same way the Twin Towers were. Amsterdam was chosen as a departure site, and Christmas Day was chosen as a time for the attack, and the plane was full of passengers. These were the things that mattered. The fact that the flight was bound for Detroit was incidental.
Not every prison in America is a maximum security facility. Not every airport in America need be a maximum security facility, either. The "security" afforded by the TSA and their silly procedures is an illusion anyway, and to impose them in every airport equally is a waste of money and resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment