home

Keeping America Safe

By TChris, Section War on Terror
Posted on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:44:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

TSA at work:

For my friend Margaret, a savvy government lawyer and nursing mom, the decision to travel overseas wasn’t one she made lightly, but she figured she could handle the logistics. Boy was she wrong. The trip got off to a bad start, she says, when “the all male screeners at Dulles spent about 20 minutes examining and testing the [breast] pump for bomb residue and once they finally figured out its general purpose, grew very uncomfortable.”

If it has wires, it must be a bomb.

< Report: Obama Tells His Finance Committee to Help Hillary With Debt | Supreme Court Strikes Down Death Penalty for Child Rape >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Keeping America Safe | 77 comments (77 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I recently traveled (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:39:52 AM EST
    with an elderly friend who had not been on an airplane since 196-something.  She was pulled out of line and subjected to an additional search. I was not allowed to accompany her.  By the time we got on the plane she was a nervous wreck.  She kept saying that she must have done something wrong while she was waiting in line and obsessed the whole week we were gone about getting on the plane to return home. It nearly ruined her vacation. We're traveling together again in a few months, and she keeps trying to convince me that we should make a 14 hour drive together instead of getting back on a plane. If it's mostly theater, why pick on an 80 year old lady?

    Because she is (none / 0) (#27)
    by eric on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:48:22 AM EST
    an easy target for these people.  Like security guards and wanna-be cops, they are in it for the power trip.  And they are not too bright, either, as is demonstrated by the fact that many of them don't seem to be able to identify a breast pump.

    Parent
    What they should do is profile. (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:21:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Training? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:59:49 AM EST
    Wouldn't the screeners receive training and part of that training would be a simple show and tell session - "this is a radio, this is an electric razor, this is a breast pump..etc"

    I have also heard of women having to drink their breast milk out of a bottle to prove it is harmless.  Also heard of them having to dump it.  And what about the 3 oz limit on liquids - what if you are flying a long distance and you need breast milk or formula for your baby?

    They allow liquids for babies (none / 0) (#50)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:00:29 PM EST
    As long as you're traveling with the bady, they allow sufficient supplies to deal with your flight - diapers, wipes, formula. Women run into problems with breast milk because professional women often pump while they are out of town on business and then have to get the stuff back home. No baby - breast milk allowed. But you can't really pack it in your suitcase and send it with your luggage. Well... I suppose they have worked out something by now, but early on a lot of women got caught because they heard baby formula was okay.

    Parent
    TSA has a webpage (none / 0) (#56)
    by eric on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:12:13 PM EST
    on this topic, HERE.

    "Mothers flying with, and now without, their child will be permitted to bring breast milk in quantities greater than three ounces as long as it is declared for inspection at the security checkpoint."


    Parent

    To be fair. . . (none / 0) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:50:30 AM EST
    as a member of the flying public, I would be extremely uncomfortable if I thought that screeners were passing electronic devices with which they were not familiar through without adequate testing.  I expect to have my own devices scanned and, if I got on with something unusual, I'd expect it to attract more attention.

    The issue here is largely whether the screeners were polite and explained why the pump received extra attention without leading to undue embarrassment of the traveler.  There's also an issue of whether they should have known what a breat pump was to begin with but, as long as they weren't rude to passenger I'm willing to give them that.

    It's a common item (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:09:36 AM EST
    It bothers me that they weren't familiar enough with a common electrical item that they could immediately identify it and determine if it was modified in a way to make it dangerous. What is to stop somebody from smuggling in a detonater disguised as a breast pump? This should have taken all of 30 seconds - identify, check function, move on to next person.

    Parent
    Depends... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:11:36 AM EST
    I'll bet if I showed one to my singleton brother, he'd be utterly clueless for a bit.

    Parent
    Is he a TSA agent? (none / 0) (#46)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:21:48 AM EST
    I could show you some tools I run across frequently at work, and you would not know what they are. A lot of women travel with breast pumps. They don't want to risk losing the pump. I think that TSA officials should be familiar with items they are likely to run across among the normal travelling public, such as laptops, strollers, wheelchairs, and less common electric devices. They don't all have to be experts, but they should be able to recognize an item and quickly call over an expert so that they can look over the item and make sure that it is what it appears to be.

    Although the point that was made about luggage not being screened is valid. As I understand it, neither are many airport workers. It's as if they have a prison with 20 foot walls around 3/4 of it and nothing at the back.

    Parent

    He's a geek... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM EST
    But if my experiences at Denver airport are any indication, there are some members of the TSA scanning crew that really made me wonder about the hiring process.

    And then they ran those expose shows on how a number of the TSA employees had felony records.

    Parent

    I think it's not. . . (none / 0) (#10)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:12:29 AM EST
    as common as those of us who read Talk Left might believe it to be.  The fact that a number of people at the screening site were apparently not able to identify it indicates that.

    Parent
    If you can't identify (none / 0) (#13)
    by eric on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:25:01 AM EST
    a breast pump, you are too stupid to work for the TSA.

    Parent
    I'm not sure... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:29:19 AM EST
    ...there is such a thing as "too stupid to work for the TSA".

    Parent
    Elitism of the highest order. (none / 0) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:28:44 AM EST
    You've just condemned probably 85% of the American public as too stupid for gainful employment.  I'm simply not willing to slam that many people for not knowing something I happen, through personal experience, to know.

    I'm no idiot (no snickering please -- you know who you are) but if you'd shown me a breast pump before my wife got one I wouldn't have had the faintest idea what it was.

    And even knowing what it is, it still needs appropriate screening.

    Parent

    Yes but (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MikeDitto on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:33:38 AM EST
    The TSA has to see dozens of them every day going through security checkpoints.

    Unless it was some kind of bizarre nuclear-powered breast pump, it should be something they are trained to identify.

    Parent

    As should be evident from the quoted. . . (none / 0) (#22)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:37:16 AM EST
    material, multiple screeners at this airport had, apparently, not seen the item before.

    Parent
    In my experience my wife has owned two pumps. (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:11:14 PM EST
    They were from different manufacturers and looked entirely different from one another.

    Have they all looked the same in your experience?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:17:45 PM EST
    But that was long ago.

    Parent
    Thanks Jim, I'm especially interested (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    in MikeDitto's experience.

    Parent
    How uncomfortable do you feel (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:59:00 AM EST
    about the fact that most cargo is not screened?

    Airport security is a joke.

    Parent

    Not particularly comfortable. . . (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:05:56 AM EST
    however I don't see how that has bearing on this story.  Are you arguing that a level playing field requires the lowest common denominator of screening for everything going on board the aircraft?

    I believe the gist of this post is that we should somehow criticize these screeners for doing their job.  If they did it, and their interaction with the passenger was polite and appropriate, I think they deserve praise rather than condemnation.

    Parent

    I saw it as an anecdotal illustration (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:12:07 AM EST
    of the absurdity of the screening process.

    Maintenance crews and baggage handlers enter and exit aircraft with impunity, and could probably put anything onboard. This woman is hassled about her breast pump. Sure, the workers are supposedly given background checks, but so are most people who work in big retail.

    Airport security is a bunch of theater, and in this case is was used to make a woman feel pretty uncomfortable.

    Parent

    Well. . . (none / 0) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:25:39 AM EST
    there are procedures in place to sanitize everything that gets past a security cordon at the airport, and that includes anyone who makes it onto the plane.

    Of course, these procedures are not foolproof -- nothing ever is.  But despite that I think it would be foolish to simply cancel them.  Similarly, the fact that passenger screening is not foolproof -- and can never be, one can always think of a dodge -- isn't a reason for not doing a reasonable amount of screening.

    The idea that because we can't guarantee absolute safety on airplanes is not a reason we shouldn't try to improve the security situation.  It's a case of making the perfect the enemy of the incrementally better.

    Doing so has two benefits.  Firstly, it does provide some additional security and makes it somewhat harder to have hijack or harm aircraft.  Secondly it has value purely as security theater.  Notwithstanding 9/11, air travel is pretty safe.  But if people don't feel safe an incident like 9/11 can have the effect of putting a real dent in people's ability and willingness to travel.  In NYC we have a similar security theater situation in the subway in which there are occasional bag checks at random stops.  No one has to submit to the bag check, and very, very few people are even asked.  Will this catch a terrorist?  Only an exceedingly dumb one -- the actual stuff that might stop someone really bent on exploding a bomb in the subway system is stuff you won't see or hear about.  However, if there were to be a loss of confidence in the subway system in New York, the city would be badly screwed.  If the security theater of bag checks conveys to people the actual safety of the subway system it's a net social plus.

    Parent

    The fact that it is primarily security theater (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:29:22 AM EST
    is the main reason why I object.

    And I think you're simply wrong. Not everyone who makes it onboard the aircraft is screened every time.

    Parent

    I didn't say they were. . . (none / 0) (#21)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:35:25 AM EST
    Not everyone who makes it onboard the aircraft is screened every time.

    Only that there are procedures in place to control what and who gets on an airplane.  As I said, I doubt those procedures are foolproof.  But if you've ever heard the alarm go off when a door is opened without the proper RFID card, you know that such procedures do, in fact, exist.

    As for the security theater aspect my point was:

    1. It's not just security theater.

    2. Security theater is valid if it projects to the public an accurate view of the safety situation and they might not have an accurate view without the theater.


    Parent
    Well, to ME it is not worth it (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:44:54 AM EST
    I actually believe that the theater does project an accurate picture of the security situation, but probably not the way the TSA intends..

    Parent
    I don't mind security (none / 0) (#47)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:30:00 AM EST
    I don't want the passenger next to me having a gun when we're getting on each other's nerves at altitude. But it has gotten ridiculous - like having to take off shoes even if they are soft shoes that could not possibly be used to hide explosives (I wore slippers to fly for a while - not, no go). Having to show identification as I get to the head of the line, have it marked off, then show it again as I go through the metal detector 5 feet away. Not being able to carry water on the plane was the final straw for me. It's ridiculous. Nobody can create an explosive with clear liquids in an airplane without being noticed. There would be much easier ways of blowing up a plane, if that were one's desire. But I can't even carry an empty water bottle through security. I had a pair of legal sewing scissors taken away because they were scissors (the TSA web site said they were okay, but you aren't allowed to argue with the agents at the gate - they have virtually unlimited power).

    Travelling by air in the U.S. has become as challenging as travelling in the Soviet Union 30 years ago. I know... I did it. I remember how nervous we were going through customs. They actually searched our vehicle. Now... I get the same feeling going through airport security. It's ridiculous. They let guys with boxcutters through. They shouldn't have. But routine security, like reinforcing the cockpit doors, would have prevented 9/11, and the next attack will be completely different. We've not only locked the barn door after the proverbial horse, we've also hobbled the horse and made the jockey wear 100 pound weights.

    Parent

    Well. . . (none / 0) (#51)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:05:18 PM EST
    But it has gotten ridiculous - like having to take off shoes even if they are soft shoes that could not possibly be used to hide explosives (I wore slippers to fly for a while - not, no go).

    It sounds like you don't have a problem with them xray-ing shoes -- just xray-ing your shoes.  If they're going to have a rule I think they need to enforce the rule.  Can you imagine the trouble they'd have getting the folks behind you to let their shoes be xray-ed if they just saw you go through without getting xray-ed.  One rule for all is a better idea to me.

    Nobody can create an explosive with clear liquids in an airplane without being noticed.

    Certainly one can -- in the toilet if necessary or in a row where you're the only one seated, or even under a blanket.

    But I can't even carry an empty water bottle through security.

    I routinely carry several empty bottles through security (not in my hands, in my bag) and fill them on the other side.  Never, ever, ever a problem.

    I had a pair of legal sewing scissors taken away because they were scissors (the TSA web site said they were okay, but you aren't allowed to argue with the agents at the gate - they have virtually unlimited power).

    That's an abuse, and I hope you reported it.  The agents do need to have the authority to make decisions, but if you know that your scissors met the criteria you should have taken the guy's name and reported.

    The inspection procedure if fraught with potential for abuse and when I first started reading this post I thought it was eventually going to get to the point where the agents were abusive to the passenger -- making fun or her or making inappropriate suggestions, or something.  But instead it just seemed like routine inspection.

    Parent

    Making explosives takes hours... (none / 0) (#65)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:27:37 PM EST
    ...and releases fumes. Have you ever had a chemistry class? Have you ever made a precipitate? That's how you make a bomb. You combine concentrated chemicals which are extremely cold (if they are too warm, even room temperature, they will react too quickly and release the explosive energy in a tiny explosion - just enough to singe your eyebrows or blow off your hand - and attract lots of notice). When you combine them, a solid forms, but it is suspended in liquid. You have to pour off as much liquid as you can then completely dry the crystals in order to use them as an explosive. Then you have to use a detonater to apply energy to them in order to get them to blow up. A detonator is an explosive device, which you must have smuggled through security. This is not something you can do in a lavatory or at your seat, unless you in a planeload of comatose people with no flight attendants.

    And I don't mind having my shoes x-rayed, if there is a reason. But you can't carry explosives in slippers any more than you could in socks, so it's ridiculous to apply the policy to them. Actually - x-raying shoes is ridiculous. One idiot tries to blow up a plane by lighting his shoes on fire and fails miserably, and now we all have to walk through security bare foot. I only hope that nobody ever tries to smuggle in something in their underwear.

    And no, technically, you are not allowed to carry empty containers through security. They are lax if they allow is. As for complaining about scissors - I'm generally a bit busy making sure that I don't lose my boarding pass or have somebody else accidentally pick up my back, taking off and putting on shoes, emptying pockets, removing anything metal, and trying to act innocent so that they don't take me aside for special treatment. And I am confident that if I did report them for taking the scissors, I would get no response whatsoever. Well, maybe a letter.

    Parent

    Oh please. (none / 0) (#68)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Have you ever had a chemistry class? Have you ever made a precipitate? That's how you make a bomb. You combine concentrated chemicals which are extremely cold (if they are too warm, even room temperature, they will react too quickly and release the explosive energy in a tiny explosion

    Remarkably enough, I've had chemistry and organic chemistry.  But I won't hold that over you in this discussion.

    The simple fact is that there are many ways to make explosives and simply saying you can't engage in one method on an airplane isn't saying you can't engage in another.  To the best of my knowledge the binaries involved in the alleged plot are not known.  But it's absurd to suggest that what was alleged isn't possible because of something you remember from chemistry class 30 or 40 years ago.

    And I don't mind having my shoes x-rayed, if there is a reason.

    The reason, as I pointed out, is that it's best to have one rule apply to all.  If you're going to require xrays of hard-soled shoes it's reasonable to require them of all shoes.

    <<
    Actually - x-raying shoes is ridiculous. One idiot tries to blow up a plane by lighting his shoes on fire and fails miserably,
    >>

    Technically speaking, what he did was not try to light his shoe, but to try to light a detonator attached to PETN explosives hidden in his shoe.  Had he been successful it's likely the airplane would have been destroyed.

    By trying to pretend (for reasons I frankly don't understand) that Reid's attempt to blow up the airliner really didn't happen, or didn't involve a real bomb, doesn't do wonders for your credibility on the issue of shoe searches.

    And no, technically, you are not allowed to carry empty containers through security.

    Do you have a cite for this?  I've never seen this rule promulgated anywhere, including in TSA signs and lists of what you cannot bring through security.

    Parent

    Reid could not have destroyed the plane (none / 0) (#69)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:31:47 PM EST
    It's pointless to worry about that. At best, if everything had worked correctly, he could have blown up his seatmates and put a small hole in the plane (and contrary to popular belief, small holes do not cause "explosive decompression". That said - what is to stop people from smuggling in some kind of bomb in a baby carrier? Or a baby? Or smuggling liquid explosives in a breast implant? Or just avoiding the passengers completely and smuggling something into an airport through a food supply company? If they want to do it, they will. We can only reduce the liklihood. The only way to be absolutely safe would be to require everybody who goes into an airport to walk through security naked, with no packages, and submit to a chemical test and a strip search, then be observed every moment on the plane. OH... and search every bag and food supply (hear that McDonalds?) and delivery truck for bad things.

    And it still wouldn't do any good. They could take a plane down using a missile, or possibly even a series of mirrors. Basic security makes sense, but there is no good reason to become a police state in order to achieve some mythical level of safety.

    Parent

    I can't keep up. (none / 0) (#73)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:46:18 PM EST
    Reid could not have destroyed the plane

    Is this because you believe there were no explosives, or there are now explosives but you happen to know enough about PETN to know that there wasn't sufficient material to actually destroy the plane?

    Any explosion on a plane is cause for concern and any explosion (or anything else) the holes the fuselage has plenty of potential to destroy the entire plane.

    We can only reduce the liklihood.

    That's exactly what I've said elsewhere in this thread.  The only question is how prudent is it to take which measures in response to what level of threat.  Obviously, people may have different opinions about what's reasonable.  But lot's of people simply reflexively say "that's dumb" (or, alternatively, those events which are causing me inconvenience could not possibly have happened) to reasonable measures.

    In large measure this is because people are fundamentally conservative -- they accept those restrictions they grew up with, but anything newfangled must, perforce, be stupid.

    Parent

    I'm actually fundamentally liberal (none / 0) (#75)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:04:35 PM EST
    I accept restrictions when the reasons are explained, but I must be given reasons for having my liberties taken away.

    I will grant that it is hypothetically possible that a competent bomber could take down a plane in the manner intended by Reid (although he was not competent - he messed up several aspects). But there are enough redundancies in plane systems that it would be very unlikely. Regardless, the security measures we have in place are not designed to prevent terrorism, but instead to inconvenience the public in order to impress them with the lengths to which the government is going to prevent terrorism.

    Here is an article that explains it better than I could. They screen all of the passengers and flight crew - but only do random checks and background checks on airport workers. Every carry on is screened thoroughly - but checked baggage is screened haphazardly. Three ounces of liquid in a 3 ounce container is okay - the same liquid in a 4 ounce container is not. The TSA workers are not always familiar with current TSA policity, and there are numerous instances of them intimidating people or asking for unreasonable things. And we have no defense except to not fly.  We can't hire a representative to protect us if they hold us in detention and it's very hard to sue the federal government if our rights are violated. It's okay as long as you aren't on the victim side - but anybody could be, anytime, and we have little redress.

    Parent

    They don't specify water bottles (none / 0) (#72)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:40:28 PM EST
    But they do emphasize repeatedly that the container for any liquids or gels must be less than 3 ounces. 2 ounces of shampoo in a 4 ounce container is unacceptable. I can't see how 0 ounces of water in a 12 ounce bottle would be okay.

    Parent
    As with the shoes. . . (none / 0) (#74)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:57:53 PM EST
    given the initial rule, it makes sense.  If one is going to have a rule that liquids are limited to three ounces, it makes sense that liquids must be in containers that only accommodate three ounces.  Otherwise, how do you know how much there is?  In fact, most people are completely unable to judge volumes and weights at the level of three ounces.  People would be going through screening with pound and half pound weights of stuff convinced that they had only three ounces.

    That has absolutely nothing to do with empty containers, in which there's no question of whether there's "prohibited" liquid and how much there is.

    So we're agreed there is no rule about empty containers?

    Parent

    If it is different (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM EST
    it will be because we made it different.

    Parent
    It is theater (none / 0) (#23)
    by eric on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:37:45 AM EST
    and there is no reason for it.  Why are we so worried about breast pumps and things with wires and even liquids?  Because one of those things did some terrible damage to an airplane?  NO.

    I don't remember a wired device or a breast pump or a tube of toothpaste causing any problems.  Not in the last eight years, anyway.  This is a reaction to September 11?  How does any of this have ANYTHING to do with September 11?  Some guys hijacked planes without the use of bombs, wires, toothpaste or breast pumps.  They simply hijacked a plane with force and some knives or boxcuters or whatever.  If you banned those things, they would have used something else.  Scanning and searching and sniffing us is worthless.

    Parent

    Uh. . . . (none / 0) (#28)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:49:22 AM EST
    I don't remember a wired device or a breast pump or a tube of toothpaste causing any problems.

    The liquid ban is because of a large plot, according the British fairly advanced, to bring down multiple airliners in a coordinated fashion using binary liquid explosives (inert materials that become explosive only when combined with each other).

    The electronic device issue is because a number of cases in which planes were brought down by explosives believed to be in electronic equipment, including one case in which it's believed that bomb was in a boom box given to an otherwise innocent passenger by her "boyfriend".

    It's true that there's always a dodge and someone will think of something.  The game is to stay ahead.

    Are you advocating completely uncontrolled boarding of aircraft?

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:11:27 AM EST
    I always thought it was pretty absurd how there are a million different ways someone might plan an attack, but we always take draconian measures to prevent the one thing that's already been done, as if we can't imagine there are any other alternatives.  Because of one "shoe bomber" now millions of people have to take off their shoes.

    I remember going down to the federal building the week after the Oklahoma City bombing, and seeing how they had blocked off the lane of traffic adjacent to the courthouse so that no one could perpetrate the exact same crime that already occurred.  It just seemed to me that if you altered some tiny detail of the plot - say, you got the truck from U-Haul instead of Ryder - these unimaginative bureaucrats would just be totally helpless to stop you.

    Parent

    Barriers and barricades (none / 0) (#37)
    by eric on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:20:57 AM EST
    around all the buildings...just ridiculous.  I remember after OK City, those barriers were put up around everything.  As if a truck bomb detonated 12 feet farther away was going to do any good.

    And at what cost?  Do we really want to have everything so barricaded that we feel like we are living in Beirut?

    Parent

    That's true. . . (none / 0) (#40)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:35:01 AM EST
    however, it would be inexcusable not to seek to prevent a known form of attack.  That's simply basic common sense.  Can you imagine the reaction (including from the people here who say it's silly to protect against a truck bomb attack) if another building were destroyed by a truck bomb?

    For every person who's clever enough to devise a new method of attack I'll bet there are quite a few others more likely to do a copycat attack.

    The liquid thing, of course, was not prompted by a past attack, but by a prospective one.

    I hope that in addition to protecting against known means of attack that the folks who thing about this stuff are also thinking about future means as well.  But that doesn't make it silly to protect against a repeat of the last attack as well.

    Parent

    Kinda (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:02:04 AM EST
    It depends how simple it is to prevent the known form of attack.  Making every single air traveler take off their shoes strikes me as excessive.  I just thank God the guy wasn't an underwear bomber.

    Parent
    Again. . . (none / 0) (#45)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:12:20 AM EST
    how would you feel if another attempt were made using the shoe method?

    The problem is that once these things are out there you can't put the genie back in the bottle.  Would you want to be the one to make the decision that it's no longer worth the effort not to scan peoples' shoes?

    These issues will probably go away with better (more reliable while less intrusive) scanning technology.  But until you can be as confident that someone isn't carrying a shoe bomb as you can be by running the shoes through the xray unit I don't really see it going away, silly and annoying as it may be.

    Parent

    For my part, I'm advocating (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:56:52 AM EST
    letting me bring my diet coke through the checkpoint.

    Parent
    But... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:08:43 AM EST
    ...you could sneak some Mento's on-board and mix that with your Diet Coke and create a bomb of unimaginable destructive powers!

    Parent
    For _my_ part. . . (none / 0) (#31)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:07:55 AM EST
    I don't think they should let you have the Diet Coke even when you're not on the plane!

    Seriously, a friend recently had to have major esophageal surgery for muscular problems that were ascribed to too much aspartine (or whatever that stuff is called).  He's about 40.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:19:44 AM EST
    I'll pick my poison.

    Parent
    Now now andgarden.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:35:29 AM EST
    big brother knows best...who are you to question his judgement on how you should lead your life?...:)

    Parent
    Can't you buy a diet coke (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:09:49 PM EST
    from shops after you have cleared security??

    I can... plus beer, wine and booze...

    Parent

    and maybe soon.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:35:32 PM EST
    a duty-free bud of Purple Haze if certain advocates have their way:)

    A man can dream...

    Parent

    The liquid thing (none / 0) (#32)
    by eric on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    is a joke.  Liquids are simply one of the states of matter.  There are three states of matter:  solid, liquid, and gas.  Are we to believe that the liquid state of matter is so dangerous that it cannot be present on airplanes?  Is it something about not quite being solid but also not being gaseous that makes it especially nefarious?  Shouldn't we be more worried about what the liquid is?

    And what about the fact that matter can change states?  If your candy bar melts in your pocket before you board a plane are you a terrorist?  Suppose I freeze a bottle of water solid, is it now harmless?  Well, the answer is yes it's harmless BECAUSE IT IS A BOTTLE OF WATER.  But to the TSA, water, when in liquid form, is grounds to have you detained and searched and harassed.

    BTW, of all of the states of matter, I do think that solids are probably the worst, as knives and bombs and even breast pumps are solid.

    Ban the solids!

    Parent

    I assume you didn't read (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:12:39 PM EST
    LarryInNYC's comment:

    The liquid ban is because of a large plot, according the British fairly advanced, to bring down multiple airliners in a coordinated fashion using binary liquid explosives (inert materials that become explosive only when combined with each other).


    Parent
    No I read that (none / 0) (#59)
    by eric on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    and it's ridiculous.  You can make a bomb out of solids, liquids, or gasses.  Why pick on the liquids?  And why ban water, toothpaste, and Diet Coke?

    And that plot, as is explained elsewhere in the comments, was a complete farce.  

    Parent

    The British Plot was vastly overblown (none / 0) (#49)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:54:15 AM EST
    You can find a lot of references on-line about how it was nonsense. Some idiots had an idea and the British authorities, who can be as foolish as our own in some cases, overreacted. Most of the supposed terrorists didn't even have passports and they never had a mechanism for carrying out the attack. You can make explosives out of common household chemicals, sort of. But you need special versions of those chemicals and it is a complicated process that requires extensive chilling (try getting a 20 pound bag of ice on an airplane), concentrated chemicals, and a lengthy drying process. It also releases fumes, can literally blow up in the face of the chemist, and involves much more than just mixing substance A into substance B. If there is any simple way of combing two liquids easily into a bomb, then no chemist on the internet has ever even hinted at it.

    Nobody is advocating uncontrolled anything. I don't even think people should be able to drive without a license. But there has to be some common sense involved - right now the system is designed to provide an impression of security and maximum intimidation of passenger's. People seem to think that if they are being given this much trouble they must be safe. But there are obvious gaps in the security and there are unnecessary procedures in place.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    You can make explosives out of common household chemicals, sort of.

    Which can cause damage to an aircraft, sort of...

    Parent

    It's an unfortunate aspect of modern life. . . (none / 0) (#62)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:22:16 PM EST
    at least under Republicans that you actually have to wonder about how much of what you're told is accurate (although a healthy skepticism is important at any time).  Still, "I read on the internet. . ." is not the basis on which I think people should form their opinions on important issues such as this.

    Parent
    Yes, we do need to be skeptics... (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    "I did not have sex with that woman..."

    ...I had no idea Countrywide was giving me a sweetheart deal....

    Elect Democrats to Congress in '06 and we will lower gasoline prices...

    lol

    ;-)

    Parent

    Actually they were (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:26:22 AM EST
    And they sure are now...

    76% of the American People want drilling off shore NOW!

    Why do the Demos want to bankrupt America???

    Parent

    Use common sense (none / 0) (#67)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:54:26 PM EST
    We have terrorists blowing things up all over the world. Can you identify a single instance in which they mixed the ingredients for the bomb on the spot? Can you identify a technique in which this could be done? The internet is not the ultimate resource, but if you look closely there are a lot of experts in various fields posting about their area of expertise. I trust them more than the government, which has a vested interest in keeping us scared and in not admitted they messed up. Most of the British "terrorists" were released. They had no tickets, in many cases no passports, and no bombs. This "plot" was as ridiculous as the "mass anthrax from planes" scare, where they told people to tape themselves into their homes.

    Oh... and I don't mean to suggest that there are no liquid esplosives. There are. But they should be caught by normal testing. You can't make them on the spot. And if a terrorist really wants to smuggle through a bomb, it's much easier to make something out of plastic explosives. Those can be concealed easily in just about anything.

    Parent

    Sounds like the standard (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:31:23 AM EST
    libertarian chant to me.

    Perhaps you can give some links??

    Parent

    Quite... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:09:20 AM EST
    The TSA screening thing is a band-aid...and most everyone in the securosphere knows it.

    Parent
    The Joys of Flying (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:01:58 AM EST
    I tend to see the humor in these pieces more so than the aggravation side that is also obviously there. With most of the population never having seen a breast pump it doesn't surprise me TSA would act strange.

    It reminds me of a friend who was taken off a plane as her luggage was being loaded in the cargo hold because "her bag was vibrating" (note to women, take the batteries out). I once garnered all kinds of nefarious attention with a carry on bag at the screening site over an electric razor...purchased only because I thought carrying razor blades on board would be a problem.

    Thank goodness they didn't ask (none / 0) (#4)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:04:14 AM EST
    her to demonstrate it, to prove what it was!

    Parent
    It is humorous.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:20:18 AM EST
    better to laugh than cry right?

    But it's never fun when it's your chops getting busted over utter nonsense, in fact it is infuriating....it's gotten to be such a hassle to fly that Greyhound looks easy and comfortable by comparison...and that's really saying something:)

    Parent

    One more reason... (none / 0) (#12)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:21:28 AM EST
    ...I'll take a nice train ride over the hassle of traveling by air any day.

    If only we had real rail service in this country.

    For that matter.... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM EST
    I'd rather take my chances with a handful of helium balloons than deal with airport security at this point.

    Parent
    What I want to know is (none / 0) (#19)
    by MikeDitto on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:31:16 AM EST
    When is the TSA going to replace my $300 Bose Quiet Comfort headphones that they demolished trying to take them apart because I was "randomly selected" for "enhanced screening"?

    I'd also like to know why I have been "randomly selected" on every flight I have taken in the past 7 years but one. I have a theory--it's because they use Soundex (a 90 year-old phonetic algorithm that only works on western names) to match names to the terrorist watch list (which is loaded with middle eastern names).

    The least the government could do.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:46:57 AM EST
    is give this brilliant idea a try.

    I mean if they insist on making us miserable while going through security, they can at least let us get happy in the smoking lounge.  For those lucky enough to still have smoking lounges in their local airport, that is.

    As the local paper said this morning... (none / 0) (#30)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:06:02 AM EST
    "Attention: You are now free to float about the cabin."

    Mason Tvert is truly one of the good guys.  He's done more for decrimalizing the personal use of pot in this state than anyone, NORML included.  

    Parent

    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:14:18 AM EST
    I'm impressed at your states efforts in fighting the good fight against drug law tyranny...My state?  We don't even have smoking lounges at the airports anymore...we're going nanny-state crazy over here.

    Parent
    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#38)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:22:26 AM EST
    ...you should talk to your Jr. Senator about that!

    The anti-smoking crowd has been pushing really hard to get rid of the smoking lounges at DIA.  They tried to tie it to the new smoking ban at the casino's (which were originally exempted), but were unsuccessful.  Doesn't mean they will stop trying though.    

    Parent

    Pffft..... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:32:35 AM EST
    Good one Mile...talk to my senator...you kill me man:)  

    You can't smoke in the casinos out there?  Now that is blasphemy...at least in AC they still have some areas where you can smoke while doubling down.

    Parent

    Come the 1st of July... (none / 0) (#42)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:57:29 AM EST
    ...you won't be able to.  It will be interesting to see what kind of effect that has on the tax revenue.  

    Parent
    My wife is a two glass of wine in the airport (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:22:56 PM EST
    lounge flyer... plus two in the air..

    So I surely wouldn't mind you lighting up...
    ;-)

    Parent

    One time.... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:37:29 PM EST
    I was desperate for some stress relief in the Atlanta airport during a long delay....but I'm not giving up my secret spot:)

    Parent
    TSA at work: (none / 0) (#48)
    by noodles on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:52:06 AM EST
    RE: Wouldn't the screeners receive training and part of that training would be a simple show and tell session - "this is a radio, this is an electric razor, this is a breast pump..etc"

    That's just stupid. We need to hire rude thugish morons and provide absolutely no training. As long as they are properly vetted as Republican-Evangelicals we can rest assured that no un-godly breast pumps will find their way onto an aircraft. It's also important that they harass people they suspect of being gay, pregnant women who aren't married, and anyone with a condom discovered in their take-on luggage. Come on folks, after seven years of WBush you should have figured this out by now.

    Keeping America Safe | 77 comments (77 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment