Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-15-2016, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,707,495 times
Reputation: 20674

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
LOL..it can't get any better than this..hiring terrorists to watch for terrorists at the airport.

Bizarro World folks...we live in bizarro world.
Link makes clear the 2 employees work for private companies.

Could be someone selling magazines, shining shoes, renting cars, serving drinks, selling lobsters, cleaning bathrooms or what not.

None of us know what " potential terrorism ties" means.

Would the name " Muhammad" qualify?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2016, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,442,711 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Link makes clear the 2 employees work for private companies.

Could be someone selling magazines, shining shoes, renting cars, serving drinks, selling lobsters, cleaning bathrooms or what not.

None of us know what " potential terrorism ties" means.

Would the name " Muhammad" qualify?
Try reading the Homeland Security document and you'll see why.
It was not because their name was "Muhammad".

The problem is that various agencies collect various data and none want to share.
So you have these quasi agencies that are blocked from getting ALL the information.
Such is typical with the FedGov agencies.

The creation of Homeland Security was supposed to eliminate that isolation.
Seems like they didn't do a good job of it.


https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/...5-98_Jun15.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 10:39 AM
 
25,619 posts, read 36,680,593 times
Reputation: 23295
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Try reading the Homeland Security document and you'll see why.
It was not because their name was "Muhammad".

The problem is that various agencies collect various data and none want to share.
So you have these quasi agencies that are blocked from getting ALL the information.
Such is typical with the FedGov agencies.


https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/...5-98_Jun15.pdf


Shame on you.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,442,711 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post


Shame on you.

Took all of 1 minute to click on the link provided in the story to read the Homeland Security document.
Even redacted it tells you that our government is too big to function.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 10:42 AM
 
8,629 posts, read 9,130,021 times
Reputation: 5978
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Link makes clear the 2 employees work for private companies.

Could be someone selling magazines, shining shoes, renting cars, serving drinks, selling lobsters, cleaning bathrooms or what not.

None of us know what " potential terrorism ties" means.

Would the name " Muhammad" qualify?
I know for a fact that Ronald Reagan Airport outsource its fueling crew to a private contractor. And the pay is very low. I really truly mean, ridiculously shockingly stupid low.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 10:45 AM
 
25,619 posts, read 36,680,593 times
Reputation: 23295
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Took all of 1 minute to click on the link provided in the story to read the Homeland Security document.
Even redacted it tells you that our government is too big to function.
You and your durned technomological thingamabobs muckin up the works again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 10:59 AM
 
1,431 posts, read 912,069 times
Reputation: 1316
Lol. The government can't even properly vet people working for the airlines, but yet Lefties think that we can accurately screen thousands of Syrian refugees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,707,495 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Try reading the Homeland Security document and you'll see why.
It was not because their name was "Muhammad".

The problem is that various agencies collect various data and none want to share.
So you have these quasi agencies that are blocked from getting ALL the information.
Such is typical with the FedGov agencies.

The creation of Homeland Security was supposed to eliminate that isolation.
Seems like they didn't do a good job of it.


https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/...5-98_Jun15.pdf
I read the embedded link. It does not define " potential terrorism ties". It does make clear they were not government employees.

TSA was created by an Act of Congress in 2001 and responsibility shifted to Department Homeland Security in 2003.

No clue why prior audits of internal controls did not identify the failure to share data. That in itself is worthy of an investigation.

Fortunately, none of former or current private sector employees with " potential terrorism ties" have engaged in any terrorism plots involving airports/ planes over the past 13 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 11:37 AM
 
17,273 posts, read 9,551,388 times
Reputation: 16468
Quote:
Originally Posted by veezybell View Post
Lol. The government can't even properly vet people working for the airlines, but yet Lefties think that we can accurately screen thousands of Syrian refugees.
What about "private company" do you not understand? Let me guess, you didn't read it? You just assume because other cons on here claim it's government body that it just HAS to be? "I read it on the intermanet, it must be true". It's literally right there, in the very first sentence of the article. My god.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,442,711 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by veezybell View Post
Lol. The government can't even properly vet people working for the airlines, but yet Lefties think that we can accurately screen thousands of Syrian refugees.
We couldn't even vet Mrs. Farook properly and we did that 3 times with 3 different agencies.
It was the MSM that found her phony home address in Pakistan and her connection to the Red Mosque.

And the MSM doesn't have access to all those secret terrorist databases the government has.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top