Feinstein want national guard to be home defense outfit
October 10, 2001 1:59 PM   Subscribe

Feinstein want national guard to be home defense outfit Let's see. The air lines hired cheap and unskilled workers for security. They lost planes and lots of business. But the GOP doesn't want air carriers to become federalized nor have feds take care of security (too much like Big Govt or socialism.) So instead, we will use tax payer's money and have the National guard do the security work for private concerns and a few public ones. What will the underpaid and/or illegals do for a living? Don't most folks in the Guard have regular jobs and do their thing on weekends? If so, should they give up their jobs for this? or double dip or flip a coin? The Guard was called up in my state. But I was told (I can not verify) that they are not allowed to carry rifles or sidearms while guarding local airports. That makes me feel safer.
posted by Postroad (7 comments total)
I wasn't aware Diane had switched parties. Opportunist.
posted by yerfatma at 2:09 PM on October 10, 2001


They're ALL in that party.
posted by UncleFes at 2:14 PM on October 10, 2001

is the issue manpower or training? are Guard members trained in anti-terrorism and security procedures? If it is just a matter of having an un-armed, uniformed presence how about boy scouts?

a good friend was an navy MP officer at a nato base for a couple of years and then worked for a firm that supervised security for government contractors like Lockheed Martin etc...they had very high standards, and were civilian. That is what we need at airports...well trained security experts, not part-time military.

i had a crazy dream last week about flying...passengers went into changing rooms and disrobed, then were put--naked--into individual capsules and loaded onto the plane like cargo for transport, sedated. in the event of a mid-air explosion, the capsules sprouted parachutes.
posted by th3ph17 at 2:22 PM on October 10, 2001

Diane Feinstein as a Republican. That's a hoot.

Way to go on the grasp of public affairs, Postroad. ;-)
posted by madreblu at 2:25 PM on October 10, 2001

They have M-16s here at the airport in San Francisco (saw them myself on Monday). Maybe it's a state-to-state thing?

I don't really see the point of them being there. They don't check bags or anything - the normal security workers are still doing that. They simply stand behind the security checkpoint and watch people walk through.
posted by mzanatta at 5:47 PM on October 10, 2001

Whoever it was in Houston and Chicago this weekend certainly had guns when I passed through both airports. I don't know for sure that it was Nat'l Guard, but boy did they have guns.
posted by mikel at 2:51 AM on October 11, 2001

I'll add a third voice that the troops at the airport most definately had guns at the airports in Reno and Las Vegas on Monday.

I'd agree, we don't need troops at the airports so much as we need trained security personell who are effective and are well paid for the important job they do.

The troops are there for show. (stating the obvious)

I had a dear friend who worked airport security, frankly, the stories he told and the very fact that HE was responsible for security (he took his job very seriously but I'm not sure he was the right person for it) scares me.
posted by mutagen at 10:28 AM on October 11, 2001

« Older RAWA's gallery of graphic videos showing the...   |   From the poorly chosen headlines department. Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments