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
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.
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.