TSA refuses to allow airports to "opt out" of their services, as required by law.

[Anti Federalist]

TSA reneges on agreement to let airports hire private screeners

http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/tsa-reneges-on-agreement-to-let-airports-hire-private-screeners

29 January 2011

Now that the firestorm of criticism over the ineptness of Transportation Security Administration policies and practices has died down,TSA Chief John Pistole dropped a fresh bombshell on Friday when he announced the TSA would be discontinuing the Screening Partnership Program.

This is a little publicized policy that permits airports to “opt out” of the use of government agents, hiring private contractors in their place to provide airport security. Pistole said he saw no advantage to continuing the policy. To date, 16 airports, including San Francisco and Kansas City, have opted out of government screening.

The announcement represents a 180-degree turn from the TSA’s position as of late December. Following an open letter by Rep. John Mica (R-FL) encouraging airports to privatize their airport screeners, a TSA spokesman stated, "If airports chose this route, we are going to work with them to do it."

On Friday, however, the TSA denied an application by Springfield-Branson Airport in Missouri to privatize its checkpoint personnel. In a statement regarding the decision, Pistole said he has been reviewing TSA policies with the goal of helping the agency "evolve into a more agile, high-performance organization."

Mica, who learned about the decision late Friday, said he intends to launch an investigation into the matter, stating:

It's unimaginable that TSA would suspend the most successfully performing passenger screening program we've had over the last decade. The agency should concentrate on cutting some of the more than 3,700 administrative personnel in Washington who concocted this decision, and reduce the army of TSA employees that has ballooned to more than 62,000.

Nearly every positive security innovation since the beginning of TSA has come from the contractor screening program.

Pistole’s decision received a vote of confidence by the American Federation of Government Employees, a union for TSA employees. The union’s president, John Gage, said in a statement:

The nation is secure in the sense that the safety of our skies will not be left in the hands of the lowest-bidder contractor, as it was before 9/11. We applaud Administrator Pistole for recognizing the value in a cohesive federalized screening system and work force.

The union reaction raises the possibility that Pistole may have yielded to pressure to disband the Screening Partnership Program. Advocates of private screeners say it is easier to discipline and replace under-performing private screeners than government ones.

[Vessol]

I'd like to see what those people who say we have a "free market" and attack us for it, have to say about this.

[jmdrake]

Defund the TSA.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Be NICE and present well reasoned arguments or he will stop listening to us. For now, he has an open ear to the public.

john.pistole@tsa.gov
john.pistole@dhs.gov

He welcomes POSSITIVE SUGGESTIONS and CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.

While not advertised as such, this is probably a good way to fast track yourself onto a no fly list if you come off as a raving lunatic or a total jerk, so behave yourself.

-t

[Humanae Libertas]

Defund the TSA.

I'd like to see the so called "Tea Party Republicans'" cosponsor a bill to eliminate the TSA or defund it someway.

[puppetmaster]

cant have private when the unionization is coming

[jmdrake]

Be NICE and present well reasoned arguments or he will stop listening to us. For now, he has an open ear to the public.

john.pistole@tsa.gov
john.pistole@dhs.gov

He welcomes POSSITIVE SUGGESTIONS and CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.

While not advertised as such, this is probably a good way to fast track yourself onto a no fly list if you come off as a raving lunatic or a total jerk, so behave yourself.

-t

If he's breaking the law as written (and he is) then he's probably not interested in an "well reasoned" arguments. It's time to file a lawsuit. The TSA won't go along with any suggestions that will ultimately reduce their power.

[Anti Federalist]

Be NICE and present well reasoned arguments or he will stop listening to us. For now, he has an open ear to the public

While not advertised as such, this is probably a good way to fast track yourself onto a no fly list if you come off as a raving lunatic or a total jerk, so behave yourself.


I've emailed and written in a consistently polite tone to Pistole over this issue.

I've never received anything other than a boilerplate form reply.

Publicly, he has made it very clear that naked scanning will not end, regardless of how many people complain, and in fact, it is going to expand to other modes of travel as well.

Now, he is protecting his union cronies and making it clear who really runs things by deliberately violating the law.

And we still have to politely grovel before our masters, hat in hand, with more "please sir, might you possibly reconsider?"

Fuck him, and the fucking horse he rode in on.

Him and every other tinpot, two bit, halfassed, authority grubbing, DC fuckstick can go eat a bowl of STD infected dicks, and fucking choke, for all fucking care.

[Vessol]

And we still have to politely grovel before our masters, hat in hand, with more "please sir, might you possibly reconsider?"

Fuck him, and the fucking horse he rode in on.

Him and every other tinpot, two bit, halfassed, authority grubbing, DC fuckstick can go eat bowl of STD infected dicks, and fucking choke, for all fucking care.

This. +rep

[puppetmaster]

I've emailed and written in a consistently polite tone to Pistole over this issue.

I've never received anything other than a boilerplate form reply.

Publicly, he has made it very clear that naked scanning will not end, regardless of how many people complain, and in fact, it is going to expand to other modes of travel as well.

Now, he is protecting his union cronies and making it clear who really runs things by deliberately violating the law.

And we still have to politely grovel before our masters, hat in hand, with more "please sir, might you possibly reconsider?"

Fuck him, and the fucking horse he rode in on.

Him and every other tinpot, two bit, halfassed, authority grubbing, DC fuckstick can go eat a bowl of STD infected dicks, and fucking choke, for all fucking care.

hell ya!

[teacherone]

I've emailed and written in a consistently polite tone to Pistole over this issue.

I've never received anything other than a boilerplate form reply.

Publicly, he has made it very clear that naked scanning will not end, regardless of how many people complain, and in fact, it is going to expand to other modes of travel as well.

Now, he is protecting his union cronies and making it clear who really runs things by deliberately violating the law.

And we still have to politely grovel before our masters, hat in hand, with more "please sir, might you possibly reconsider?"

Fuck him, and the fucking horse he rode in on.

Him and every other tinpot, two bit, halfassed, authority grubbing, DC fuckstick can go eat a bowl of STD infected dicks, and fucking choke, for all fucking care.

I know you were saving this for future use but I feel it's rather appropriate--- :)

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/chill-hobbes_forum.jpg

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I've emailed and written in a consistently polite tone to Pistole over this issue.

I've never received anything other than a boilerplate form reply.

Publicly, he has made it very clear that naked scanning will not end, regardless of how many people complain, and in fact, it is going to expand to other modes of travel as well.

Now, he is protecting his union cronies and making it clear who really runs things by deliberately violating the law.

And we still have to politely grovel before our masters, hat in hand, with more "please sir, might you possibly reconsider?"

Fuck him, and the fucking horse he rode in on.

Him and every other tinpot, two bit, halfassed, authority grubbing, DC fuckstick can go eat a bowl of STD infected dicks, and fucking choke, for all fucking care.

AF, you never ceaze to amaze. If I could I would rep you, but alas, I must re-distribute my reputation before I can do so.

[jmdrake]

If we're going to fight this (and we must fight this) we need to dispassionately dissect the relevant law. I don't want to get mad. I want to get even. Here's the "opt out" portion of the 2001 Aviation and Transportation Security Act. I've been looking at this for some time now and have been working out (in my head) a legal response to what's going on now. I could use some help. I have to prepare for class right now but I want to get this out there to get thoughts and comments. I'll add mine later.

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/Aviation_and_Transportation_Security_Act_ATSA_Publ ic_Law_107_1771.pdf
§ 44920. Security screening opt-out program
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—On or after the last day of the 2-year period
beginning on the date on which the Under Secretary transmits
to Congress the certification required by section 110(c) of the Aviation
and Transportation Security Act, an operator of an airport
may submit to the Under Secretary an application to have the
screening of passengers and property at the airport under section
44901 to be carried out by the screening personnel of a qualified
private screening company under a contract entered into with the
Under Secretary.
‘‘(b) APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS.—The Under Secretary may
approve any application submitted under subsection (a).
‘‘(c) QUALIFIED PRIVATE SCREENING COMPANY.—A private
screening company is qualified to provide screening services at
an airport under this section if the company will only employ
individuals to provide such services who meet all the requirements
of this chapter applicable to Federal Government personnel who
perform screening services at airports under this chapter and will
provide compensation and other benefits to such individuals that
are not less than the level of compensation and other benefits
provided to such Federal Government personnel in accordance with
this chapter.
‘‘(d) STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE SCREENING COMPANIES.—The
Under Secretary may enter into a contract with a private screening
company to provide screening at an airport under this section
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:46 Nov 29, 2001 Jkt 099139 PO 00071 Frm 00016 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL071.107 APPS16 PsN: PUBL071
PUBLIC LAW 107–71—NOV. 19, 2001 115 STAT. 613
only if the Under Secretary determines and certifies to Congress
that—
‘‘(1) the level of screening services and protection provided
at the airport under the contract will be equal to or greater
than the level that would be provided at the airport by Federal
Government personnel under this chapter; and
‘‘(2) the private screening company is owned and controlled
by a citizen of the United States, to the extent that the Under
Secretary determines that there are private screening companies
owned and controlled by such citizens.
‘‘(e) SUPERVISION OF SCREENED PERSONNEL.—The Under Secretary
shall provide Federal Government supervisors to oversee
all screening at each airport at which screening services are provided
under this section and provide Federal Government law
enforcement officers at the airport pursuant to this chapter.
‘‘(f) TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS.—The Under Secretary may
terminate any contract entered into with a private screening company
to provide screening services at an airport under this section
if the Under Secretary finds that the company has failed repeatedly
to comply with any standard, regulation, directive, order, law, or
contract applicable to the hiring or training of personnel to provide
such services or to the provision of screening at the airport.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The analysis for such subchapter
is amended by adding after the item relating to section 44918
the following:
‘‘44919. Security screening pilot program.
‘‘44920. Security screening opt-out program.’’.

[jrskblx125]

Every time i hear his voice in the airports (once a month for me) i wanna beat his face in. I just wish his name wasnt so fuckin cool! Johnny fuckin pistole. Does it get and cooler?

[puppetmaster]

Every time i hear his voice in the airports (once a month for me) i wanna beat his face in. I just wish his name wasnt so fuckin cool! Johnny fuckin pistole. Does it get and cooler?


lol

[acptulsa]

'Pistole said he saw no advantage to continuing the policy.'


No advantage to whom? His boss? Himself?

[jmdrake]

'Pistole said he saw no advantage to continuing the policy.'


No advantage to whom? His boss? Himself?

People are looking at this wrong. It's not a "policy" at all. Policies can be changed at the discretion of the federal department secretary. The opt out provision is part of the law. That's why I posted it. We can NOT allow people like Pistole to frame the debate.

[Stary Hickory]

And lets abolish the TSA....America did fine for many years without the TSA, we do not need those thugs trying to make themselves a permanent fixture in our society. The porno scanners must go and so should TSA, we don't need them we never have.

[acptulsa]

People are looking at this wrong. It's not a "policy" at all. Policies can be changed at the discretion of the federal department secretary. The opt out provision is part of the law. That's why I posted it. We can NOT allow people like Pistole to frame the debate.

Quite a respect you have for the law, there. Unfortunately, in Washington the Nixonian philosophy of 'I know the dumb bastard that wrote that and he didn't intend for it to apply to me' still prevails...

[jmdrake]

Quite a respect you have for the law, there. Unfortunately, in Washington the Nixonian philosophy of 'I know the dumb bastard that wrote that and he didn't intend for it to apply to me' still prevails...

Attempting to use the law as it exists to the best possible effect should not be confused with naiveté as you seem to be applying. We can sit around and moan about how "horrible the government is" or we can make real efforts at reform. Really, what good is attempting to get people like Rand and Ron elected, if we aren't going to read laws that do get passed and do our best to force the government to adhere to them? But hey, if you want to waste time complaining and not actually try to do anything don't let me stand in your way.

[acptulsa]

Attempting to use the law as it exists to the best possible effect should not be confused with naiveté as you seem to be applying. We can sit around and moan about how "horrible the government is" or we can make real efforts at reform. Really, what good is attempting to get people like Rand and Ron elected, if we aren't going to read laws that do get passed and do our best to force the government to adhere to them? But hey, if you want to waste time complaining and not actually try to do anything don't let me stand in your way.

I am neither 'applying' nor 'implying' naivete, at least not on your part. And please don't underestimate the value of ironic humor to our cause. It can be useful stuff.

[heavenlyboy34]

Attempting to use the law as it exists to the best possible effect should not be confused with naiveté as you seem to be applying. We can sit around and moan about how "horrible the government is" or we can make real efforts at reform. Really, what good is attempting to get people like Rand and Ron elected, if we aren't going to read laws that do get passed and do our best to force the government to adhere to them? But hey, if you want to waste time complaining and not actually try to do anything don't let me stand in your way.

Or we could ignore your silly false choice and choose to opt out of "official" (illegitimate) government entirely and use voluntaryism to undermine the regime. ;)

[jmdrake]

I am neither 'applying' nor 'implying' naivete, at least not on your part. And please don't underestimate the value of ironic humor to our cause. It can be useful stuff.

LOL at my "applying" grammar incorrectly and at your ironic humor. Ok I get your point. Yes our government sucks and if we file the lawsuit I'm suggesting we may very well lose even though there is not legitimate reason for us to lose. I guess I'm trying to force the dictator to act like one. ;)

[jmdrake]

Or we could ignore your silly false choice and choose to opt out of "official" (illegitimate) government entirely and use voluntaryism to undermine the regime. ;)

It's not as much of a "false choice" and you've convinced yourself into believing. Let's say you fly. Let's say you don't get porn scanned or patted down. (The TSA has backed down somewhat). You're still paying for the TSA to be their through your airline ticket. You can't say to the airline "I want my ticket price reduced by the amount that's going to pay for the TSA." So even if you "opt out" you really haven't. In contrast I want to help the states opt the TSA all the way out of their airport. The mistake many "voluntarists" make is thinking what they are doing is mutually exclusive with taking action with regards to the existing laws.

[BuddyRey]

Wow. It only took a bit under a decade for this government "security measure" to go rogue and turn on the people who facilitated its inception. That has to be some kind of record.

[awake]

The tick burroughs down.

[susano]

I've emailed and written in a consistently polite tone to Pistole over this issue.

I've never received anything other than a boilerplate form reply.

Publicly, he has made it very clear that naked scanning will not end, regardless of how many people complain, and in fact, it is going to expand to other modes of travel as well.

Now, he is protecting his union cronies and making it clear who really runs things by deliberately violating the law.

And we still have to politely grovel before our masters, hat in hand, with more "please sir, might you possibly reconsider?"

Fuck him, and the fucking horse he rode in on.

Him and every other tinpot, two bit, halfassed, authority grubbing, DC fuckstick can go eat a bowl of STD infected dicks, and fucking choke, for all fucking care.

+ 1

Polite objections to sociopathic tyrants do not work.

[QueenB4Liberty]

+ 1

Polite objections to sociopathic tyrants do not work.

Amen.

This is really getting ridiculous.

[LibForestPaul]

Be NICE and present well reasoned arguments or he will stop listening to us. For now, he has an open ear to the public.

john.pistole@tsa.gov
john.pistole@dhs.gov

He welcomes POSSITIVE SUGGESTIONS and CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.

While not advertised as such, this is probably a good way to fast track yourself onto a no fly list if you come off as a raving lunatic or a total jerk, so behave yourself.

-t

Shouldn't we try to get everyone on the no fly list?

[PreDeadMan]

Or we could ignore your silly false choice and choose to opt out of "official" (illegitimate) government entirely and use voluntaryism to undermine the regime. ;)

^^this + 100 million

[osan]

If he's breaking the law as written (and he is) then he's probably not interested in an "well reasoned" arguments. It's time to file a lawsuit. The TSA won't go along with any suggestions that will ultimately reduce their power.

This sums things up nicely.

It is incredible to consider the fact that the age of reason is over in America where politics are concerned. "Well reasoned" anything is now meaningless here if it swims against the currents of the official agenda.

[osan]

This is really getting ridiculous.

Ridiculous passed us by years ago. We are now very actively exploring the limits of the surreal.