by Becky Akers
Becky Akers is a freelance writer who lives in New York City.
The House Homeland Security Committee has “invited” the “Hon. Edmond S. lsquo;Kip’ Hawley, Administrator, Transportation Security Administration [TSA], Department of Homeland Security,” to a dog-and-pony show today. At a “full Committee open hearing” politicians will tsk-tsk the latest scandal engulfing his agency: not only are its airport screeners cheating on tests of their abilities to detect weapons (and still barely passing them), but the TSA itself is giving them the answers.
You probably won’t be surprised to learn that the public servants who steal your toothpaste and feel you up at checkpoints badly bomb performance tests. We’re not talking mediocre failure, either: the TSA’s screeners go for the gold, missing an incredible 90 percent or more of the fake explosives undercover federal investigators smuggle past them.
These tests supposedly occur on unannounced dates at unannounced airports — or so the TSA would have us believe. In actuality, screeners knew when, where, and often exactly how these pop quizzes would be conducted. This is hardly news despite the recent front-page hullabaloo: the testing, screeners’ flaming failure, and the cheating have been going on for years. Last November, the San Francisco Chronicle reported, “Federal transportation officials and a private security firm [Covenant Aviation Security] at San Francisco International Airport worked together to undermine a federal investigation of passenger screening at security checkpoints, according to a report. . . by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. . . . From August 2003 until May 2004, TSA officials and Covenant managers at the airport lsquo;notified screening personnel in advance when a[n undercover] tester was approaching a checkpoint and provided their descriptions,’ the report states.”
San Francisco’s screeners weren’t the only cheats. USA Today quoted a report from Richard Skinner, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security: “[S]creeners in Jackson[, Mississippi] lsquo;received advance notice of covert testing’ by TSA agents in February 2004. The screeners were tipped off by fellow TSA employees at the airport, who described the gender and race of the TSA agents, the type of weapons they were trying to get past screeners and where the weapons were hidden in checked and carry-on bags, Skinner found.” The scandal spread beyond Jackson: “Skinner is investigating lsquo;whether (screeners) at [six] other airports received advance notice of any covert testing,’ spokeswoman Tamara Faulkner saidhellip;. . . .”
Whether or not they cheat, screeners perform as pitifully as Rudy Giuliani at an antiwar rally. “Security screeners at two of the nation's busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year. . . . Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb partshellip;At Chicago O'Hare International Airport, screeners missed about 60% of hidden bomb materials. . . .”
That’s par for the course. Since the TSA’s first tests in 2003, screeners have generally overlooked anywhere from 71 to 100 percent of the weapons investigators sneak past them. Even San Francisco’s cheaters couldn’t find more than 80 percent of the contraband, despite knowing where and what to hunt.
Who gave screeners the heads’ up on these tests? Details varied from airport to airport, but there was one constant: the TSA’s management was shocked, shocked, and would welcome an investigation of the scandal. Inspector General Skinner reported that at Jackson-Evers International Airport in Mississippi, “[W]e could not identify, with absolute certainty, where the advance information originated from, but this information was communicated to certain individuals at all levels of TSA personnel… Meanwhile, TSA spokesman Christopher White sounded oh-so-innocent as he promised to “do whatever we can to facilitate the investigation.”
In San Francisco, Skinner found that “lsquo;TSA officials and Covenant managers at the airport’ notified screening personnel in advance when a tester was approaching a checkpoint and provided their descriptions. . . .” But “TSA officials denied instructing Covenant personnel to tip off screeners about the location of testers or their methodologies.”
Is that the smell of pants on fire? “However, Covenant employees provided evidence that the order to tip off screeners came from an unnamed TSA manager at the airport.”
It’s bad enough when TSA managers at individual airports alert screeners. But headquarters itself has been emailing employees “all over the country [with] very specific details about what sorts of suspicious clues the undercover testers would expect them to notice — such as ID's with photos that did not match the people using them and boarding passes with altered dates.”
Distressed Politicians
Politicians and pundits are disingenuously distressed at these revelations. But why act surprised when an inherently immoral bureaucracy cheats? Only the dangerously naiuml;ve expect anything else from officers who rob and sexually assault passengers by the nature of their job. Screeners take passengers’ shampoo, moisturizer, and other property without consent while forcibly groping them. Indeed, because the TSA denies boarding to passengers who refuse to be frisked, its pat-downs meet the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources‘ definition of “sexual assault and abuse”: “any type of sexual activity that you do not agree to, including … inappropriate touching. …Sexual assault can be verbal, visual, or anything that forces a person to join in unwanted sexual contact or attention.” (Emphasis added.) Cheating seems small potatoes after molestation and theft.
Especially on tests that are a public-relations ploy. They’re supposed to fool taxpayers into believing that everything’s on the up and up because the government’s policing itself. That’s like trusting a fox to check out his buddies on guard at the henhouse — and it shows the scorn in which rulers hold our intelligence.