Slashdot Mirror
Terminal Mixup Implicates TSA Agents In LAX Smuggling Plot
First time accepted submitter ian_po writes "The U.S. Attorney's office has filed indictments against 7 people, including two Transportation Security Administration Screeners and two former TSA employees, after federal agents set up several smuggling sting operations. The alleged smuggling scheme was revealed after a suspected drug courier went to Terminal 5, where his flight was departing, instead of going through the Terminal 6 checkpoint his written instructions directed him to. Court documents indicate the plan was to return to Terminal 5 through a secure tunnel after being allowed through security by the accused Screener. The courier was caught with 10 pounds of cocaine at the other checkpoint by a different TSA agent. If convicted, the four TSA employees face a minimum of 10 years in Federal prison." If ten pounds of anything can get onto a plane by the simple expedient of bribery, please explain again why adult travelers, but not children, must remove their shoes as they stand massed in an unsecured part of a typical U.S. airport.
As always, the weakest link in anything security related are humans. This begs the question of whether we really need the TSA
I'd like to think that since these people were in positions of power regarding 'Homeland Security', TSA agents after all, are supposed to be there to stop threats right, that such a violation of public trust and authority would warrant them much harsher penalties than some common bloke caught smuggling dope. Sadly I know this not to be true.
I've always thought that Federal employees, be it lowly TSA employees, postal workers right up to Supreme Court Justices, should be held to a much harsher judicial standard than your every day citizen, or local and state public servant. Why? Because the amount of power within the system that is retained by those positions, makes the violations of it that much more severe because they breaking the public trust.
In short, if the system is rotten from within, kinda hard to support in it theory, much less in practice.
I'm annoyed by the TSA as much as the next guy, but it's their job to screen people and baggage for threats to aircraft (snow globes, nail clippers, pasta sauce, hand grenades etc.). Since when is it their job to detect drugs? That's the job of the police, not the TSA. Cocaine and meth are not threats to aircraft.
Of course they wouldn't possibly lie to you about what you're helping them smuggle.
Well, here's the question though, would these screeners have 'ignored' an explosive for $2,400?
Do these screeners have a portable chemical lab kit right next to the pornoscanner? Are they trained chemists who know what to do with this lab kit to tell the difference between a drug and an explosive?
Of course, once the screeners are paid the courier carries whatever he pleases, and nobody is going to check what it is.
I think a TSA agent is probably more likely to turn a blink eye to cocaine than an actual threat to people's lives.
Cocaine may be more destructive than explosives.
do you think the TSA guys checked that the guy was carrying what he told them? Oh, we are going to accept your bribe, but we'll check your package. I don't think so.
So you're saying that the TSA guy who took the bribe trusted the obviously trustworthy guy trying to bribe him that it was really coke, as opposed to say, 10 lbs of plastic explosives?
Security theater to catch the rare stupid attacker and enrich the buddies of those in congress and nothing more is all it is.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
Drugs and wars over drugs killed more people than all airplane crashes, by all causes, combined.
Much as the recording of them accepting a bribe to let the explosive through would look very different than them performing their job duty without corruption..
So - if the scenario goes like this:
1) You accept bribe to permit 'cocaine' through, and the smuggler films you doing this
2) Later on, a bomb is smuggled through while the smuggler lets you in on the fact that you were filmed.
3) You: either report the issue and risk (perhaps reduced but still significant) prison time when the terrorists cooperatives release the video through anonymous means, or let the person through and cross your fingers.
If you're the kind of person that accepted the bribe in the first place..
you're probably the kind of person that would do 'b' and hope for the best..
that's the problem with corruption - it corrupts.