Perhaps the wrong transportation department official was fired
John Magaw, the former chief of the Secret Service and BATF, was shoved out as head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). According to the story in today's Washington Post,
"Lawmakers, security experts and the aviation community have complained for weeks that Magaw, a former head of both the Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, surrounded himself with tough ex-cops who lacked organizational experience and ignored outside advice".
Good on him, for actually recognizing that he held a law enforcement position as chief of the TSA. Too bad for Mr. Mineta and those in the aviation industry and Congress who would like, against hope and reality, to have it both ways -- good security without impacting on the aviation industry or the flying public.
To be sure, Mr. Magaw was not his own best friend and somebody used execrable judgment in spending an alleged $400,000 on an office suite renovation. There is also the curious opposition by Mr. Magaw to the arming of pilots, but at least on this point law enforcement folks have always had mixed thoughts about arming anyone other than sworn enforcement officers. But these things are mere pretext. The real reason is the inevitable conflict between reality and expectations. That conflict was presented clearly in the poor relations between congressional satraps and Mr. Magaw. "Health reasons", indeed. Dealing with congressional oversight committees under impossible constraints would give anyone "health reasons" for leaving.
The constraints were impossible as they were self-conflicting. It matters not at all who held that post, or what his disposition may have been. What it really comes down to are these conflicting demands which would defeat anyone in that situation:
1. meet congressionally-imposed deadlines, e.g. December 31, 2002 for 100% baggage inspection but with budgetary restrictions, not to mention technology and infrastructure problems with deployment of the necessary scanning devices;
2. go all-Fed for security screening, but don't exceed congressionally-imposed manpower numbers;
3. hold at least one hand behind your back by not doing the necessary and logical law-enforcement practice of profiling.
4. don't piss off the airline and airport industry groups and their pet chihuahuas in Congress.
Folks, it's either law enforcement or it's not. Irrespective of budget and manpower restrictions, there is a root problem in the organizational placement of TSA. Having the TSA reporting to the department of transportation (DOT) is a recipe for failure. DOT has been, from its inception in the mid-1960s, a client-oriented agency that regulated and controlled with the minimal amount of friction against its true interests. Those interests were, and apparently remain, a healthy aviation industry.
It is a very good thing to have a healthy aviation industry; necessary even. But security is a drain on resources of the industry, and as such directly affects the bottom line. There will always be conflicts between security and promotion of the industry, which would clearly prefer to not inconvenience its flying customers. The inconvenience posed by terrorists seizing a commercial airliner and flying it into the WTC apparently was an insufficient attention-getter.
We all wish Mr. Magaw's apparent successor, Admiral (USCG, ret) James Loy, the very best. But he will fail, unless the administration gets serious about transportation security and, working with Congress, gets TSA out of DOT and lets it be the law enforcement agency that we need.
John Magaw, the former chief of the Secret Service and BATF, was shoved out as head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). According to the story in today's Washington Post,
"Lawmakers, security experts and the aviation community have complained for weeks that Magaw, a former head of both the Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, surrounded himself with tough ex-cops who lacked organizational experience and ignored outside advice".
Good on him, for actually recognizing that he held a law enforcement position as chief of the TSA. Too bad for Mr. Mineta and those in the aviation industry and Congress who would like, against hope and reality, to have it both ways -- good security without impacting on the aviation industry or the flying public.
To be sure, Mr. Magaw was not his own best friend and somebody used execrable judgment in spending an alleged $400,000 on an office suite renovation. There is also the curious opposition by Mr. Magaw to the arming of pilots, but at least on this point law enforcement folks have always had mixed thoughts about arming anyone other than sworn enforcement officers. But these things are mere pretext. The real reason is the inevitable conflict between reality and expectations. That conflict was presented clearly in the poor relations between congressional satraps and Mr. Magaw. "Health reasons", indeed. Dealing with congressional oversight committees under impossible constraints would give anyone "health reasons" for leaving.
The constraints were impossible as they were self-conflicting. It matters not at all who held that post, or what his disposition may have been. What it really comes down to are these conflicting demands which would defeat anyone in that situation:
1. meet congressionally-imposed deadlines, e.g. December 31, 2002 for 100% baggage inspection but with budgetary restrictions, not to mention technology and infrastructure problems with deployment of the necessary scanning devices;
2. go all-Fed for security screening, but don't exceed congressionally-imposed manpower numbers;
3. hold at least one hand behind your back by not doing the necessary and logical law-enforcement practice of profiling.
4. don't piss off the airline and airport industry groups and their pet chihuahuas in Congress.
Folks, it's either law enforcement or it's not. Irrespective of budget and manpower restrictions, there is a root problem in the organizational placement of TSA. Having the TSA reporting to the department of transportation (DOT) is a recipe for failure. DOT has been, from its inception in the mid-1960s, a client-oriented agency that regulated and controlled with the minimal amount of friction against its true interests. Those interests were, and apparently remain, a healthy aviation industry.
It is a very good thing to have a healthy aviation industry; necessary even. But security is a drain on resources of the industry, and as such directly affects the bottom line. There will always be conflicts between security and promotion of the industry, which would clearly prefer to not inconvenience its flying customers. The inconvenience posed by terrorists seizing a commercial airliner and flying it into the WTC apparently was an insufficient attention-getter.
We all wish Mr. Magaw's apparent successor, Admiral (USCG, ret) James Loy, the very best. But he will fail, unless the administration gets serious about transportation security and, working with Congress, gets TSA out of DOT and lets it be the law enforcement agency that we need.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home