Iranian-American man forgets his gun is in his computer bag, brings it through security
54 replies, posted
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-screeners/story?id=12412458[/url]
[release]Last fall, as he had done hundreds of times, Iranian-American businessman Farid Seif passed through security at a Houston airport and boarded an international flight.
He didn't realize he had forgotten to remove the loaded snub nose "baby" Glock pistol from his computer bag. But TSA officers never noticed as his bag glided along the belt and was x-rayed. When he got to his hotel after the three-hour flight, he was shocked to discover the gun traveled unnoticed from Houston.
"It's just impossible to miss it, you know. I mean, this is not a small gun," Seif told ABC News. "How can you miss it? You cannot miss it."
But the TSA did miss it, and despite what most people believe about the painstaking effort to screen airline passengers and their luggage before they enter the terminal, it was not that unusual.
Experts tell ABC News that every year since the September 11 terror attacks, federal agencies have conducted random, covert "red team tests," where undercover agents try to see just how much they can get past security checks at major U.S. airports. And while the Department of Homeland Security closely guards the results as classified, those that have leaked in media reports have been shocking.
According to one report, undercover TSA agents testing security at a Newark airport terminal on one day in 2006 found that TSA screeners failed to detect concealed bombs and guns 20 out of 22 times. A 2007 government audit leaked to USA Today revealed that undercover agents were successful slipping simulated explosives and bomb parts through Los Angeles's LAX airport in 50 out of 70 attempts, and at Chicago's O'Hare airport agents made 75 attempts and succeeded in getting through undetected 45 times.
[b]Pistole Said Poor Screening Results Led To Enhanced Pat-downs[/b]
Despite the results, there is no sign that the numbers have changed as the screeners have been tested year after year, former Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin told ABC News.
"Those reports were classified but it's sufficing to say that reports, both classified and unclassified, are concerning. Too often guns and knives and fake explosives get through the checkpoint," Ervin said. "And what is particularly concerning is that nine times out of 10 the checkpoint is the most critical layer of aviation security."
Ervin said a combination of factors is likely to blame for the persistent failures on the part of screeners. Low pay, poor training, and the monotony involved in watching bags pass through x-ray machines are a recipe for trouble, Ervin said.
"To be fair to screeners, it's very difficult work," he said. "After so many hours of seeing things that are innocuous, there's really a limit for the human brain to process something anomalous."
Last month, TSA Chief John Pistole told ABC News that the poor performance during undercover tests helped convince him that airport screening needed to get that much tougher -- and a desire to do better helped give rise to the controversial new regimen that includes enhanced pat-downs and back-scatter machines that can see beneath a traveler's clothing.
"We've had a series of reports actually going back several years from the inspector general, from the General Accounting Office, and our own TSA Office of Inspection, where they do, as you describe, covert testing," Pistole acknowledged to George Stephanopoulos last month during an interview on Good Morning America. "And unfortunately, [undercover testers] have been very successful over the years. And one of the findings is that we have not been thorough enough. And the concern obviously is, if that's an Abdulmutallab -- a Christmas Day bomber -- who is doing it rather than an undercover agent, then that can have catastrophic results."
[b]Seif Shocked That He Carried Gun Through Security[/b]
For Seif, the discovery that he had accidentally carried a handgun on an international flight from Houston came as a shock. Rather than let the incident pass, he told ABC News he felt duty-bound to alert authorities to what he considered a gaping hole in security. When he met with Homeland Security officials upon his return to Houston, he said they appeared eager to remedy the problem.
"They were very embarrassed, you know," Seif said. "And -- and they should be, you know. It's -- we're talking about total failure."
TSA spokesman Greg Soule provided ABC News with a statement saying the agency was aware of the year-old incident and had taken steps to address it.
"We conducted an immediate investigation and remedial training was provided to the security officers involved," the statement said.
While it may seem odd for a traveler to walk into an airport with a gun in his carry-on luggage, Soule noted that it happens more often than most people think. Posted on TSA's web site is a count of handguns confiscated by screeners at security checkpoints each week. During the first week in December, screeners found 14 firearms, the website says.
But the agency will not comment on the performance by screeners in undercover testing. Homeland Security officials have determined that any details on performance at checkpoints could provide a road map for terrorists, said the TSA's Soule.
Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican who called on the Government Accountability Office to conduct its own, independent covert tests of airport screening, decried the decision to classify the results as a national security secret.
"Those results aren't going to help terrorists figure out how to better attack us, and they certainly aren't going to give them any more motivation to try than they already have," Grassley said on the senate floor in September. "Keeping the results secret will accomplish one thing, however. It will ensure that the public has no idea how effective our airport screening strategy actually is."[/release]
Makes you wonder why terrorists don't just try hijacking a plane with guns and knives instead of stupid shit like diaper bombs.
2nd report of the new checks failing
Adam Savage brought on foot-long razorblades too.
The TSA is a joke. Time to replace them with private contractors who would actually do their job well.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26748172]The TSA is a joke. Time to replace them with private contractors who would actually do their job well.[/QUOTE]
They already are private contractors.
He must've shat his pants. Lucky him this didn't turn into a report about how a "supposed sleeper cell attempts to hijack airport, plane, crash plane into bank."
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26748172]The TSA is a joke. Time to replace them with private contractors who would actually do their job well.[/QUOTE]
That would be worse. They wouldn't answer to anyone.
[editline]17th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Habsburg;26748233]They already are private contractors.[/QUOTE]
They're working as a government agency, he means turn security over exclusively to the airlines
and this is why the TSA sucks and these "scans" are invasive and don't do shit.
considering his name and race, if he was caught he would likely be branded a muslim terrorist immediately.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26748251]They're working as a government agency, he means turn security over exclusively to the airlines[/QUOTE]
Ah, that makes sense then.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;26748258]and this is why the TSA sucks and these "scans" are invasive and don't do shit.[/QUOTE]
If the gun was taped to his cock the scanners would have picked it up immediately
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26748251]That would be worse. They wouldn't answer to anyone.[/quote]
What was the system used before the TSA took over?
[QUOTE=Habsburg;26748233]They already are private contractors.[/QUOTE]
TSA is a Government Owned Agency? How are they private contractors?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26748335]TSA is a Government Owned Agency? How are they private contractors?[/QUOTE]
Airports are allowed to opt out and hire private firms. They're still held to the same standards and regulations though.
Wow TSA,
I'm kind of at a loss for words to describe how thick this people are.
[QUOTE=Habsburg;26748455]Airports are allowed to opt out and hire private firms. They're still held to the same standards and regulations though.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the point is they don't. Cost reduction means hiring the TSA or Government to do the job works out a lot better.
The private sector almost always works out to be more efficent in carring out duties.
All the TSA does is make people feel more secure. It does practically nothing to actually protect citizens and travelers, except for the occasional lucky hit.
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;26748663]All the TSA does is make people feel more secure. It does practically nothing to actually protect citizens and travelers, except for the occasional lucky hit.[/QUOTE]
Alas instances like this show that the TSA doesn't even keep anyone safe, all the while violating their their most fundamental privacy by taking naked photos of them and groping them.
Stick an air marshall on every flight, problem solved.
[QUOTE=JLea;26751599]Stick an air marshall on every flight, problem solved.[/QUOTE]
And what if an Air Marshall decides to become corrupt/feel a little suicidal?
[QUOTE=Starpluck;26751716]And what if an Air Marshall decides to become corrupt/feel a little suicidal?[/QUOTE]
Backup Air Marshall. :smug:
[QUOTE=Starpluck;26751716]And what if an Air Marshall decides to become corrupt/feel a little suicidal?[/QUOTE]
The pilots of that plane would have more control than an air martial with a handgun, but how often do you see suicidal or corrupt pilots?
[editline]18th December 2010[/editline]
Not that a marshall on every plane is economically feasible.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;26751766]Backup Air Marshall. :smug:[/QUOTE]
I'd kill the backup first thing
[editline]17th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26752059]The pilots of that plane would have more control than an air martial with a handgun, but how often do you see suicidal or corrupt pilots?
[editline]18th December 2010[/editline]
Not that a marshall on every plane is economically feasible.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure Marshalls have keys to the cockpit in the event of an emergency.
[editline]17th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26752059]The pilots of that plane would have more control than an air martial with a handgun, but how often do you see suicidal or corrupt pilots?
[editline]18th December 2010[/editline]
Not that a marshall on every plane is economically feasible.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure Marshalls have the keys to the cockpit in the event of an emergency
[QUOTE=Starpluck;26752084]I'm pretty sure Marshalls have the keys to the cockpit in the event of an emergency[/QUOTE]
I was referring to a pilot taking the plane into the ground. Worrying about a suicidal or corrupt marshal would be the same as worrying about a suicidal or corrupt pilot. It's not really worth worrying about.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26748335]What was the system used before the TSA took over?[/QUOTE]
Just your basic "X-ray your luggage while you walk through a metal detector" method I believe.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;26752127]I was referring to a pilot taking the plane into the ground. Worrying about a suicidal or corrupt marshal would be the same as worrying about a suicidal or corrupt pilot. It's not really worth worrying about.[/QUOTE]
True
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;26752143]Just your basic "X-ray your luggage while you walk through a metal detector" method I believe.[/QUOTE]
Haha, nah, was referring to if it was a private or public contractor.
As soon as I hit the "To be fair to screeners, it's very difficult work" part I just stopped reading. No point in making excuses for this idiocy.
I don't care about the screenings, more power to the people who have to stare at my junk. It just frightens me that it just doesn't fucking [b]WORK[/b].
Once again, the TSA are useless, Like I've been saying
How do you not catch a gun in plain sight
Most of the "close calls" that were caught before they went on the plane were found by tips anyway, not the TSA.
I don't think I'll be flying for quite a while...
woooooow
good thing for him the TSA is so mind-numbingly incompetent or else right about now some guy named big bob would be feeding him a cockmeat sandwich
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.