GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Fingerprint checks for truckers called too costly

• 13503
  

  But at least then their fingerprints would be on file, to identify them in the ensuing investigation. By not being fingerprinted when they obtained a commercial license, they could remain anonymous, even after death, as in your proposed scenario. By identifying such drivers, investigators can piece together the rest of the puzzle, and eventually unravel the whole conspiracy. Even though "the damage would have already been done," other attacks and further damage could be prevented.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 18, 2005 11:37 AM
• 13455
  

  If I recall correctly, Timothy McVeigh was not a commercial truck driver by trade when he blew up his rental truck filled with common fertilizer at Oklahoma City. Besides, almost any person with a squeaky clean police record can obtain a commercial drivers license, and if it's in that person's mind to cause massive destruction with his cargo for whatever reason, we probably won't be able to stop it. We might just know after the fact that he or she was a driver who was finger printed. If the person is eventually apprehended because of the finger print, the damage would have already been done.

  DoD Program Analyst

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 16, 2005 10:21 AM
• 13349
  

  Common Sense for the People:

  You are absolutely right! We should not fingerprint everyone. We should get their DNA instead, so that when we scrape the pavement for some of their blood, we know who blew up the local ACLU office.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 9, 2005 7:08 PM
• 13267
  

  This is a slippery slope! Why not pass a law that requires our citizens to get finger printed by the time they turn 18. Something like the selective service requirement for guys. That way you have everyone fingerprinted before they enter the workforce. Even if everyone is fingerprinted, will that deter a citizen from becoming a threat? I don't think anyone can possibly believe this. The hi-jackers of 9/11 had fingerprints, right? It didn't seem to help us prevent their actions, right? How are fingerprints going to help us monitor the millions of truckers on the road everyday. It's not possible, no matter how much money or technology you spend trying to do it.

  Common Sense for the People Posted November 4, 2005 11:57 AM
• 13252
  

  Customs used to do fingerprint checks of airline employees at major airports who had access to international flights (i.e., the border). After finding that numerous employees had criminal records, the program was stopped. Some said it was too costly, others said because the airlines put pressure on the government because they were losing too many workers. Whatever the reason, it seems similar to the present issue of having truckers fingerprinted. We've spent billions of dollars on homeland security since 9/11, and now people are saying it costs too much to do this? I say it could cost a lot more if we didn't do this, especially considering how many truckers are hauling all sorts of hazardous cargo, which could be turned into a weapon. What would it cost a trucking company if one of its drivers used his position to attack this country in this manner? I'm sure that the lawsuits would put the company out of business, as well as its insurers, if they even cover such events.

  Better safe than sorry.

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 3, 2005 1:04 PM
• 13214
  

  I would have thought the background checks was a standard hiring practice and am confused as to why the trucking industry is balking at what should be done anyway. Honestly, what firm wants to be known as the company that hired a dangerous person (not necessarily a terrorist) who ends up killing people or blowing something up using their truck? Isn't this something that should be done at the same time as drug screenings? I can understand the trucking industry balking at the cost of mass screenings of persons already employed and conceding that common sense needs to rule. How about a compromise - just screen all new hires and just the current drivers that deliver loads containing "at risk" HAZMAT?

  Stephanie Smith Posted November 2, 2005 9:27 AM