[Arthel Neville:] Hello everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. A shocking new report suggests some airport screeners aren't doing their jobs. The Transportation Department conducted some secret tests using fake guns, dynamite and bombs. Agents tried to slip the fakes by security screeners and, guess what? Twenty-five percent of the time the goods got by. OK, we all want to know what's going on here, right? Absolutely and I want to hear from you on this as well. So go ahead and give me a call me at 1-800-310-4CNN or of course you can e-mail talkback@cnn.com. Now take a look at what else we have planned today.
[Michael Bloomberg, Nyc Mayor:] We all know that smoking kills, and increasing the cigarette tax saves lives.
[Neville:] That new cigarette tax is expected to raise an additional $111 million a year, and New York smokers now pay more than $7 a pack. But is the hefty tariff about improving your health or improving the health of the treasury? And you could say New York firefighters are smoking. Check out the men in uniform burning up a new calendar. You're going to meet them all except for the three who died responding to the World Trade Center attack.
[Nic Robertson, Cnn Senior International Correspondent:] Well Arthel, the Afghan defense ministry here, the chief of staff says that between 20 and 30 Afghans were killed in that bombing. He says perhaps more than 60 were injured. He describes what happens. He says that a U.S. aircraft was over flying Oruzgan Province, that is in the south Afghanistan near Kandahar. That aircraft, he said, went over an Afghan wedding. He said people at the wedding were firing in the air in celebration. He said the aircraft then dropped bombs. Some of those bombs hit the people at that wedding. Now, military briefers here at Bagram Air Base north of Kabul say that there was a Special Operations unit in that area, that they were targeted by forces on the ground. They called in close air support. Close air support was a B-52 and AC-130 gunship. The B-52 did drop bombs. They say that four civilians were brought to their attention and that they held them. They took them away and gave them medical attention, but as for the exact number of casualties, that's unknown. They say there will be coalition forces and joint Afghan investigation. That should begin within the next 12 hours with daylight here on Tuesday Arthel.
[Neville:] Nic, have you had a chance to get reaction from the Afghan officials regarding all of this?
[Robertson:] Well so far the only statement we have is from the Afghan chief defense ministry chief of staff, and his reaction very much a blunt statement to the facts as they believe they have them at this time. As for Afghan officials in Kandahar, which is the closest large city to this incident, no we don't have reaction from there yet. Certainly, from the military briefers here, they have said that the U.S. government extends its sympathy to all civilians involved in this and they are expecting a full and thorough investigation to begin very soon.
[Neville:] So Nic, I just want to clarify something you did say at the top of your report that a traditional celebration there involves shooting a gun up into the air and that that's what happened?
[Robertson:] Well, that is what happens at wedding celebrations here. A lot of people in Afghanistan, particularly in the rural communities, still have Kalashnikovs. However, there are some discrepancies in these two reports we've had, one from the Afghan government, one from the coalition forces here. The coalition forces say that those close air support aircraft, the B-52 bomber and the AC-130 specter gunship were fired on by anti- aircraft gunfire. Now that tends not to be a traditional weapon fired at an Afghan wedding celebration. However, in rural communities, it's not uncommon to see an old aging, rusting anti-aircraft gun lying around. Still, there are many, many details about this incident that are not known and that's what coalition briefers say they hope will be made clear when this investigation gets under way. But there are discrepancies from what we hear at this time.
[Neville:] And Nic Robertson, I'm sure you will get all the details as they become available. Thank you very much for that update. And now we're going to look at what appears to be a major problem with airport screeners at airports across the country. I told you before that the Transportation Department conducted a test and managed to get such items as fake guns, dynamite and bombs past the screeners. Now security appears to be especially lax in Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Jacksonville, Los Angeles and Sacramento. According to the tests, the cities with the best security include Miami, Newark, Fort Lauderdale, Honolulu and JFK Airport in New York. The test was conducted on screeners hired by private security companies. They are due to be replaced with federal workers by November. And here to talk about it, Charlie Leblanc, the managing director at Airport Security International, a private firm that provides security training for airports, and Jim Dent, a former commercial pilot and president of Airline Employee Replacement Service in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. His company provides staffing for the airlines, and I'd like to welcome both of you gentlemen.
[Charlie Leblanc, Airport Security Int'l:] Thank you very much.
[Neville:] OK Charlie, I'm going to start with you. What seems to be the problem here, the people doing the screening or the equipment they are using?
[Leblanc:] I think it's a little bit of both. I think it's a it's a training issue. It's not necessarily solely an equipment issue. TSA is moving very quickly in trying to federalize the security checkpoint personnel and in doing so, they are focusing on that, but you know they may be leaving behind the people that are doing the screening today.
[Neville:] Yes, but maybe not. Jim Dent, jump in here for me because the way I understand it, I read that the actual people that the federal government will be hiring are many of the people who are in place right now.
[Jim Dent, Airline Employee Replacement Service:] Well that's correct. It expedites the process, and I have to agree with Charlie, but one thing I've got to point out is that a lot of the technology that we would need to do a 100 percent screening, and also the training haven't been instituted or are not around at this time. So really you're just replacing one system with a federally run system at this time. You're not really you haven't really improved it as of this moment and time.
[Neville:] And what sort of technology are we talking about here?
[Dent:] Well, technology would be there is a system now that they're testing in Orlando that's voluntary right now, but it actually sees through things and picks up specific items. One thing is it sees through clothes, believe it or not. You can actually walk through it and it makes you transparent as far as what you are wearing. So those sorts of type technology are in the process of being developed, but our current technology is not capable of detecting the minute details that we need to be 100 percent secure going in through airports or anyplace.
[Neville:] Charlie let's talk about the people, again, for a moment, the people who are doing the screening. Of course, we can't paint everybody with the same brush. I understand that, but at the same time, I'm going to go ahead and say that I've traveled a lot actually in the last couple of weeks and I've got to tell you some people seem like they're just kind of there on the job, passing the luggage through. You know one guy made me take off my hat for no apparent reason other than because he could. And it seems to me that that's sort of kind of juvenile attitude is not appropriate for such a major position.
[Leblanc:] Well I think one of the big problems that the TSA has been facing so far, is morale of these contract employees, that know that if they don't fit the criteria or they haven't brought up to speed on the hiring process of whether they're going to be having jobs, you know, when November comes around or when their specific airports gets phased into the process...
[Neville:] Right, but let me jump in though because I understand that whole idea about morale, but it seems to me if I were in that position and I realized that perhaps I might lose my job, it would make me step up to the plate and perform even better.
[Leblanc:] Yes, but we're dealing with a minimum wage employee that doesn't think like a, you know, you and I would, you know, in this position especially since September 11, and all the focus that's been on airport security. I think some of these people are just trying to ride this out and see if they are going to be hired by the federal government if they meet the qualifications. And those that know that they won't are either, A, looking for a new job while they keep this job, or, B, are just going to kind of stay around until they probably are told to leave.
[Neville:] OK now let me let me go ahead and highlight for you the training and benefits involved with this position of screening. They will screeners they will receive 44 hours of classroom training, which is really just under two days, 60 hours of on the job training, less than 3 days. OK, and then the salaries are, I'd say, that's a pretty good salary there. We're talking about anywhere between $23,600 a year up to 35,400 a year, including federal health and life insurance, sick leave, paid vacation, and retirement benefits. That's not a position you take lightly. I mean those are great benefits and that pay is certainly not bad. So I don't understand this whole minimum wage mentality you're talking about.
[Leblanc:] Well the minimum wage mentality are the contracting workers that are there today. I flew through Baltimore last week, which is one of the first federal airports and the make-up of the checkpoint was totally different. The professionalism was different. The personnel were different. There was a lost staffing there, which doesn't usually exist in an airport. So I think what we're seeing is as we make this transition to the federal workers and they do have the benefits that you've outlined, we're going to see a definite increase in the professionalism and in hopefully the confidence level of these people working at the checkpoints.
[Neville:] Jim, do you agree?
[Dent:] I don't necessarily agree with that Arthel. I think when you're dealing with people as employees, and if you take a look, say compared to the U.S. Post Office, although the post office has a significant amount of good employees, you're going to have certain people in any industry or in any organization that aren't 100 percent. We have to we have to admit to ourselves that we cannot guarantee 100 percent of airport security through the screening process. All we can do is give our screeners technology and training that will limit the amount of possible intrusions that we could have at the airports. You're never going to get to 100 percent be it federal, be it private. In my opinion the best thing the federal government could have done would be to create an oversight organization and leave it private. The private industry in this country...
[Neville:] And what would the oversight organization do?
[Dent:] The oversight organization would then be responsible to over see the security, the privately contracted companies that would provide the services at the airports. At this point, all you're really doing is you're replacing a private organization employee with a federal organization employee. You're not getting any benefit out of that at this point. You've got a bigger federal government, more bureaucracy, and everything else. The private industry in this country, I mean you can take a look at some of the largest security firms in this country are fabulous.
[Neville:] Hang on for me...
[Dent:] ... better job.
[Neville:] ... hang on for me. I have to take a break right now. I know Doug from Florida, you're standing by. I'll get to you when I come back. And also up next, we're going to Los Angeles International where screeners failed to uncover fake guns and explosives 41 percent of the time. TALKBACK LIVE continues after the break.