AG Bondi: Some 'Sick' Stuff on Jeffrey Epstein Is Dropping Tomorrow
Supreme Court Blocks Order From Lunatic Judge That Would've Forced Trump to Unfreeze...
College Speaker: The Holocaust Was Not Unique
'They Crossed the Line': Tom Homan Issues Threat to Activists Who Doxed ICE...
Brian Stelter's Outrage at White House Press Exclusions Meets His Past Support for...
Rachel Maddow's Very, Very, Very Special Friend
Firearms Policy Coalition Takes to Court to Argue Only Congress Can Create Laws
President Trump Signs New Executive Order on DOGE
Democratic Senator Claims Dan Bongino Has 'Zero Experience' to Be FBI Deputy Director
Two Airplanes at Reagan National Airport Narrowly Avoided a Collision
Legacy Media Outlets Really Ought to Calm Down Over White House's Decision on...
Trump, Vance Put the Mainstream Media in Their Place When Taking Questions at...
Shiri Bibas' Family Is Suing Al-Jazeera
Trump Encouraged by GOP Lawmakers to Recognize West Bank As Israeli Territory
Pam Bondi Dismisses Biden-Era DEI Lawsuits Involving Merit-Based Hiring of Firefighters, C...
Tipsheet

TSA: Hey, Maybe We Just Shouldn't Screen Travelers At Smaller Airports

In one of the more mind-bogglingly bad ideas that has ever been presented, the TSA apparently proposed not screening travelers at smaller regional airports and instead screening them upon arrival in a bigger city. The idea is that not screening travelers would create a more "efficient" travel experience.

Advertisement

Perhaps unsurprisingly, members of Congress were not on the same page as the TSA and promptly shut down this idea.

But then Congress got wind of the proposal. And now the TSA is backing down after lawmakers denounced the idea as bizarre and even dangerous, especially following terrorist attacks such as the March bombings in Brussels.

“From a security standpoint, it makes no sense,” said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), who learned months ago that the TSA had refused to place screeners at a regional airport in his district. Instead, the agency suggested, it would screen the passengers after they landed at larger airports and before they boarded connecting flights.

The dispute represents yet another setback for the agency’s troubled efforts to adopt what advocates call a leaner, more “risk-based” security strategy in an era of flat-lined budgets.

Well, yeah. This is a terrible idea. As one congressman pointed out, there's no guarantee that the plane in question would even make it to its destination if passengers were not screened. Further, as we saw in Belgium, it's not just the airplanes that are the targets. There's no reason why a passenger couldn't smuggle a bomb through a small airport, and then detonate it at the security checkpoint at a larger airport--potentially killing far more people than would fit on a puddle jumper. The TSA's idea was an incredibly short-sighted one.

Advertisement

It's even more head-scratching when one considers that the ringleader of the September 11 attack basically used an identical plan to slip through security. Mohammad Atta knew that the security at the small Portland International Jetport would be far less intense than at Boston's airport, and was able to breeze through without getting held up.

The TSA is supposed to protect Americans, but ridiculous proposals like these make it tough to trust them.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement