How Far Has Our Post September 11th Security Broken Down?
Tweet
Security breach highlights needed improvements in TSA employee screening
ORLANDO, Fla.–The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General released a report acknowledging a March 2007 security breach at the Orlando International Airport, which involved TSA employees smuggling 14 firearms and eight pounds of marijuana aboard a commercial flight. In the report, the DHS makes six recommendations to improve employee screening at the airport and “address vulnerabilities associated with the ‘insider threat’ highlighted by the March 5, 2007 incident.”
According to the report, improvements include the implementation of two random and deterrent-based screening programs: the Aviation Direct Access Screening Program, which includes checking passenger ID and boarding passes, and screening luggage at the gate, and the Visible Intermodal Protection and Response Program, a combination of Federal Air Marshals, explosive-detection canine teams, aviation security inspectors and TSA officers who provide a random screening. In addition, the TSA started conducting assessments of airport employees to assess whether workers have ties to terrorism or are in violation of immigration and admissibility laws.
Immediately following the incident, the Orlando Aviation Authority mandated that all employees with planeside access undergo screening.
The report also addressed the feasibility of 100-percent employee screening, which the TSA is currently evaluating in pilot programs at three major airports around the country. According to the report, before a decision can be made regarding 100-percent screening, the “TSA needs improvements in its ability to obtain and maintain situational awareness of incidents, as well as updating its regulatory framework that governs airport employee conduct.”
(Fits the stereotype “grumpy, old, crippled, white bastard who might pull out a Bible on the plane and start knocking people out with it” …)
Post-9/11 security breaks down
By Doug Fraser – (Cape Cod Times)
If Stephen Grant had been a terrorist on Jan. 1, 2007, he would have been in the perfect place to execute a nightmare scenario.
By flashing his Chatham assistant harbor master’s badge and claiming to be an armed agent for the Department of Homeland Security, Grant was escorted onboard his flight from Logan International Airport to San Diego and taken into the cockpit to talk to the pilot. Based on airport procedures and federal laws covering armed law enforcement officers, he was given a free pass around metal detectors, carry-on baggage screening devices and security personnel. He was told the identity of everyone on the plane who was carrying a weapon, including both air marshals and the pilot.
And Grant pulled it off not just once but again three days later on his flight back to Logan.
Last week, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston charged Grant with falsely impersonating a federal agent and making false statements to police and other security personnel. He faces a possible eight years in jail, and a maximum $250,000 fine. He is due back in U.S. District Court in Boston Dec. 12.
But the blame for the alleged subterfuge doesn’t rest only with Grant, a 48-year-old sales manager from Rockland.
That day, nearly everyone assigned to protect the security and safety of passengers, from ticketing agents to the state police to the pilots, appears to have been lax in enforcing federal laws, judging from a court affidavit by a Transportation Security Administration investigator, which was confirmed by an American Airlines spokesman.
“There is some measure of fault, throughout this, by everyone involved, throughout law enforcement, and with our personnel,” American Airlines spokesman Tim Wagner said. “We have learned lessons.”
Those lessons include changes to the federal security rules.
“Since this incident, we made some important procedural changes to address this,” Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman Ann Davis said Wednesday. The changes came “within days” of the 2007 incident, she said.
However she and spokesmen for other agencies declined to say whether anyone was disciplined or retrained as a result of the incident.
While Davis, the State Police, Chatham Harbor Master Stuart Smith, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston declined to comment on any details in the case, citing an ongoing federal investigation, Wagner confirmed that the only narrative of what happened, the TSA affidavit, is accurate.
Grant, who worked two summers for Chatham on its harbor patrol, said in an interview with the Times last week that the incidents were a misunderstanding that snowballed.
But it appears Grant breezed by security with the flimsiest of credentials.
Claimed to be armed
The Jan. 1 incident started when he handed a ticketing agent his wallet containing a silver badge identifying him as an assistant harbor master, Grant said in the TSA affidavit. Seeing the badge, the agent asked him if he were armed, and, inexplicably, Grant responded “Yes.”
Just as inexplicably, he was given a law-enforcement flying-while-armed form, although he did not qualify for the exemption that would have allowed him to take a weapon on a plane and did not have the required paperwork.
Other than federal agents and U.S. air marshals, only full-time state, county or municipal law enforcement officers, who are authorized by their agency to carry a weapon in connection with their assigned duties, are allowed to take a gun on a commercial flight. The federal law requires that the officer present an original letter from the employing agency, signed by the agency’s authorizing agent, confirming that the officer needs to travel armed, and listing the itinerary. Officers can only travel armed if they are escorting a prisoner, doing hazardous surveillance, engaged in protection work, or need to be armed and ready on deplaning.
Grant met none of those criteria. He was not even a full-time Chatham employee. Along with other members of the town’s seasonal harbor patrol, he was given the title of assistant harbor master only to comply with state law on enforcing laws on waterways. His primary mission was rescuing swimmers and boaters. Smith, the Chatham harbor master, said only he is authorized to carry a weapon.
In fact, Grant was on a business trip to San Diego for his company, YSI Inc. Yet, no one in Boston or San Diego asked him why an assistant harbor master in a small Cape Cod port was armed or requested to see the required letter explaining his mission, according to the TSA investigator’s affidavit,
Wagner, from American Airlines, said the ticket agent remembered seeing something with a Chatham harbor master’s office letterhead, but couldn’t recall what was written on the paper.
“Security is not our (ticket) agents’ function,” said Wagner. “Our ticketing agents are to ask for law enforcement credentials and the letter. They aren’t trained in verifying their credentials “¦ We hand you over to law enforcement.”
At Logan that day, Grant was passed on to Massachusetts State Police Trooper Edward McMillan. The trooper has more than 20 years’ experience, including four at Logan, according to court documents.
McMillan told the TSA investigator that he met Grant at the exit used by passengers leaving the gate area. The exit has none of the equipment used by TSA employees to screen passengers and carry-on luggage before entering the secure area to board a plane. McMillan looked at Grant’s assistant harbor master badge, a picture ID that said “Maritime Law Enforcement  Harbor Patrol,” his driver’s license and his flying-while-armed form, the court affadavit says.
Instant ID check available
The affidavit does not mention whether McMillan used a new program installed four years ago on the cell phones of the 147 troopers assigned to Logan that instantly checks on the identities of those who raise their suspicions.
“Trooper McMillan recalled that Grant did not act nervous or say much and acted as if he’d done this before,” TSA investigator Michael Ryan said in the affidavit.
Grant then signed a TSA log, allegedly entering “DHS” (Department of Homeland Security) under the agency name, and McMillan escorted him through the gate and into the secure area, without questioning his DHS claim, or asking to see the required letter.
A ticketing agent then pre-boarded Grant and two federal air marshals, all of whom were met by American Airlines flight attendant Kathleen Glauser.
She told the flight’s chief pilot, Capt. Emmitt Brewington, that Grant was armed. Brewington later told investigators that he recalled being introduced to someone who was a law enforcement officer working as harbor security for Massport. Other than the flying-while-armed form, he never asked for any paperwork, according to the court affadavit.
On his return flight from San Diego to Boston on Jan. 4, 2007, Grant again flashed his badge, but this time, the ticketing agent did not ask him if he were armed, or offer him a flying-while-armed form. But, coincidentally, Glauser was again on board as a flight attendant. She recognized Grant as he arrived on board and asked him if he was armed.
When Grant allegedly responded affirmatively, she took him to see the pilot, Capt. Edwin Roberts Jr., as required under federal law. She did not ask to see his paperwork, although neither federal nor airline officials will say whether she should have.
Roberts, however, was skeptical of Grant’s answers as to why he didn’t have the proper forms and left the plane to consult American Airlines gate agent Al Emirita. Even though Grant didn’t produce the required authorizing letter, Emirita had him fill out a flying-while-armed form on which Grant again listed “DHS,” according to the affadavit.
Roberts told the TSA investigator that Grant said he was a harbor master working with Homeland Security and that he also worked for the Massachusetts State Police.
After the flight took off, Emirita was suspicious enough to talk to TSA representatives, who, in turn, called Roberts, concerned he might have an armed imposter on board. They considered ordering Roberts to make an emergency landing, but the captain told them he didn’t think Grant was a threat. Grant was questioned by state police on landing in Boston. He said he paid a $4,000 fine to settle the civil case, but he was brought up on criminal charges on Nov. 25.
Grant’s deception exposed an exploitable hole in the security network put in place after Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners, including two departing from Boston.
Uncertainty remains
Davis would not discuss the changes made in policy since the incident with Grant, citing security. She did confirm one, however. Anyone who wants to carry a weapon on board a commercial airliner now must be able to give airline and airport security personnel a special code obtained from the TSA.
But as of yesterday, the agencies involved still seemed to be unclear on exactly who is responsible for verifying the identity of those who want to bring a gun onto a plane.
“The airlines are responsible for checking those,” said Massport spokesman Phillip Orlandella.
Davis also said the airline is the front rank for checking the validity of credentials.
But Wagner, of American Airlines, disagreed.
“We’re not responsible for security,” he said.
“Security personnel are responsible for making sure the person is who he says he is, and has a reason to carry a weapon.”
 |
|