Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
In response to the attempt to blow up an airplane in Detroit, the TSA is doing its usual lousy job of fighting the last war rather than preparing for the next one. Because this person tried to blow up the plane as it landed, they've now got a new rule requiring passengers to stay in their seats for the last hour of a flight:
But several airlines released detailed information about the restrictions, saying that passengers on international flights coming to the United States will apparently have to remain in their seats for the last hour of a flight without any personal items on their laps.
So if he had tried to blow it up in the 2nd hour of the flight, or the third hour, would they then require passengers to stay in their seats during those hours instead? The timing is entirely incidental and has nothing to do with the situation. Balko reacts correctly:
In addition to keeping with its usually tradition of making policy on a reactionary basis, this one wouldn't even have done anything to prevent the attempt over the weekend. The guy was in his seat when he tried to light the explosive device. And the passenger who confronted him got out of his seat to do it.
Also, if the goal was to bring the plane down from the air, why add restrictions for the last hour of the flight?
Seems to me that what this, Flight 93, and the Richard Reid incident have shown us is that the best line of defense against airplane-based terrorism is us. Alert, aware, informed passengers.
TSA, on the other hand, equates hassle with safety. For all the crap they put us through, this guy still got some sort of explosive material on the plane from Amsterdam. He was stopped by law-abiding passengers. So TSA responds to all of this by . . . announcing plans to hassle law-abiding U.S. passengers even more.
If you're really cynical, you could make a good argument that they're really only interested in the appearance of safety. They've simply concluded that the more difficult they make your flight, the safer you'll feel. Never mind if any of the theatrics actually work.
On top of all of that, it's becoming more and more clear that this guy should never have been allowed on a plane in the first place. The government had been warned specifically about him by his father three months ago, who went to the US embassy and told them that he had gotten involved with jihadi groups in Yemen. We have a no fly list full of people who aren't terrorists, how did this guy not get on that list?
Why wasn't he at -- at the very least -- pulled aside for a supplemental inspection when boarding the plane? Such an inspection would likely have detected the bomb material and foiled the plot before it got started. I know a guy of Arab/Persian descent who has lived in this country for decades who gets pulled for additional inspections on virtually every flight he takes, even domestic flights. But this guy, about whom our government was explicitly warned by his own father, manages to board an international flight without a second glance.
And then Janet Napolitano goes on TV and says that the situation shows that "the system works"? The only thing that prevented this from being 300 dead people was the fact that the bomber couldn't ignite the bomb -- and absolutely nothing we had in place prevented him from building it or getting it on board the plane. It really should be a requirement, I think, that the head of the Department of Homeland Security be at least in close proximity to the reality that the rest of us live in.
There is some serious incompetence going on here, probably in the lack of communication between various parts of the government - the same problem that allowed 9/11 to take place. And the incompetence is only continuing in response to the situation.
Comments
you're confusing cynicism with realism again, Ed. a cynic would suggest that the TSA somehow benefits from us not really being made any safer, or even from us being kept at some perpetually nagging level of "unsafe", so as to not make the TSA seem (too obviously, to people who aren't actively looking) redundant.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | December 28, 2009 9:43 AM
To be fair about all of this, and not to let the TSA entirely off the hook, it should be noted that this miscreant boarded an aircraft in Nigeria, and transferred to a Detroit bound plane in Amsterdam. Perhaps, unfortunately, the TSA doesn't have any jurisdiction in those two places.
Posted by: SLC | December 28, 2009 9:49 AM
Having watched many airport security personnel, they don't look very competent. They look bored, pissed off, and completely focused on rules so tightly drawn and enforced that they seem unable to profile with any accuracy. Patting down granny rather than a nervous teenager. They rely on technology they do not understand and rely on those strict rules to cover their collective asses. A very unreliable system.
Posted by: MikeMa | December 28, 2009 9:52 AM
I don't think such a view is cynical at all, I think it's a perfectly rational analysis of the way TSA has approached the problem of airline security. Salon's "Patrick Smith," who writes their "Ask the Pilot" feature, dubbed it "security theater" years ago. He once had a butter knife confiscated by TSA when boarding an airplane he was going to pilot.
Posted by: Pieter B | December 28, 2009 9:52 AM
Pieter B reminds me of an experience in 2003 at John Wayne Airport, where, after security, I was able to have breakfast where I was given metal utensils: knife, fork and spoon. I could have easily pocketed all of them and walked unchecked to my gate. It isn't just TSA. No one in a position of responsibility is thinking about actual security. They pay lip service and follow rules. Creative thinkers need not apply.
Posted by: MikeMa | December 28, 2009 9:59 AM
And if I'm just an ordinary flyer, and I need to use the bathroom in that last hour... what do I do..... Piss in my pants????????
Posted by: Zarathustra | December 28, 2009 10:01 AM
The directive automatically expires on December 30 (Wednesday). Of course, that doesn't stop them from extending it or passing another one like it.
Posted by: speedwell | December 28, 2009 10:02 AM
SLC @ 2: That's a logical thought, but factually wrong. I've flown from Amsterdam to the U.S. and had to go through screening by American personnel near the gate. So yeah, theoretically this guy could have been caught in Amsterdam.
Posted by: hirst | December 28, 2009 10:04 AM
"But this guy, about whom our government was explicitly warned by his own father, manages to board an international flight without a second glance."
The 'own father' part may have been an issue. Law enforcement has to deal with a lot of bogus tips that end up being motivated by stupid petty family quarrels and a desire to hassle the offending husband/wife/son/daughter. And like SLC points out, there's a jurisdiction issue; the U.S. Embassy received the tip; do they have the power to have him stopped and searched by Nigerian airlines on a flight to Amsterdam? I'm pretty sure the TSA can only search people as they board flights departing from someplace within the TSA's jurisdiction.
Which is not to say that the TSA are competent - certainly these latest regulations are kabuki security - only that they didn't have any role to play in this case. And that makes these imbecilic, panicked additional restrictions all the more ridiculous.
Posted by: mad the swine | December 28, 2009 10:04 AM
My friend couldn't board a plane with a two inch blunt metal sword shaped keychain. I'm pretty sure a sharpened pencil would have been more dangerous...
Posted by: deep | December 28, 2009 10:26 AM
The incident also reveals the incompetence of terrorists; he lit the device and it didn't explode. As many chemists pointed out during the British Air bomb scare, a novice just can't mix a chemical bomb up in an airplane bathroom, or most anywhere, often enough. Of course, I doubt we'll be seeing pundits and gov. officials laughing at this moron's ignorance anytime soon.
Posted by: Julian | December 28, 2009 11:01 AM
When you stop and think about it, that's pretty terrifying.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 28, 2009 11:11 AM
why so, Sadie? the TSA is (supposed to be) just a bunch of alert, aware, informed people acting as a first line of defense. the fact that they're falling down on that job due to an incurable and acute case of bureaucratitis doesn't change the fact that they, too, are just plain people, same as us.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | December 28, 2009 11:25 AM
My favorite quote on this comes from Schneier:
Only one carry on? No electronics for the first hour of flight? I wish that, just once, some terrorist would try something that you can only foil by upgrading the passengers to first class and giving them free drinks.
Posted by: yoshi | December 28, 2009 11:29 AM
If you're really cynical, you could make a good argument that they're really only interested in the appearance of safety.
Uh, yeah. Unless you are really cynical in which you assume that the purpose of the TSA is to get Americans prepared for living under a military dictatorship.
Posted by: ursa major | December 28, 2009 11:30 AM
Bierce, Ambrose, The Devil's Dictionary:
Posted by: NJ | December 28, 2009 11:37 AM
Two points.
1) I believe the new restrictions concerning the last hour of the flight are in response to the notion that to create the greatest publicity, damage and disruption by bringing down an aircraft over a major American city. Obviously this can be done most easily on final approach.
But while there may be a reason behind it, I really don't see how these new restrictions are going help much. It's not really that hard for the terrorists to take the new restrictions into account in future plans for attacks.
2) I'm leery about condemning the people in charge of keeping us safe for not nipping this incident in the bud. Europeans have been living with the reality of terrorism on their soil for far longer than America has, and understand that it's impossible to prevent 100% of all attacks forever. And both luck and terrorist ineptness are important factors in thwarting attacks where the system has failed.
That doesn't mean the system can't be improved, and important lessons should be learned from every incident of terrorism. I just feel, as someone who lived in Britain during the IRA campaign of terrorism that sometimes spilled over onto the mainland, that many Americans have an unrealistic expectation when it comes to preventing all acts of terror on American soil.
Posted by: tacitus | December 28, 2009 11:40 AM
A couple of observations:
1) The Lagos, Nigeria airport supposedly adheres to certain international security standards. If they do not, then Amsterdam should be screening prior to releasing those travelers into the rest of the screened population of travelers.
2) Given there were no casualties, this is a positive opportunity to monitor the federal government's problem solving process. Who will demagogue the issue? Who doesn't have a clue? (Napalitano already fits this category given her entire interview on Meet the Press yesterday; Press Secretary Gibbs appears like a valuable resource.), Who will advocate for containment of symptoms (fail) rather than work towards a successful root cause analysis, permanent corrective actions, and preventative maintenance?
2a) Napolitano fails for saying the 'important point' was that the this terrorist failed. Uh, no - not even close. The important point was that this particular guy was allowed on a plane with explosive materials.
3) I'm not that concerned about this terrorist not being on a no-fly list given the info provided to date; however I find his not either getting on the list for secondary screenings or those passing those screenings. Those screenings for such people should occur at least at every possible transaction juncture; this was a major, major failing in these airports containment processes, e.g.,
a) Entering Lagos airport
b) Entering aircraft at Lagos
c) Entering Amsterdam airport pop'n
d) Entering aircraft in Amsterdam
3b) We should all realize screenings are a mere containment process. If you don't fix the root cause with a permanent corrective action then future defects should be anticipated.
4) What were the process failures that allowed the explosive materials on-board?
4b) See 3b for same point.
5) Ms. Napolitano has a horrible poker face, worse than W. Bush's. David Gregory asked her obvious questions and it was like he smacked her across the face on questions she should have run through her head for hours prior to this interview.
I assume she was on vacation given it's the holidays and that may have played into her being out of sorts if this performance isn't representative of her capabilities. Also, the investigation just started therefore she couldn't reveal much. But trying to put a positive spin on what the passengers did as a reflection of the process working was such a major failure that if I were President Obama I'd be seriously considering requesting her resignation. Life is not fair for executive level people and her interview showed a level of cluelessness that might be a one-time defect given the time of year; but the obligation should rest on her shoulders to prove she's got what it takes. She lost me.
6) Firing her can also show evidence of Mr. Obama's seriousness that might ripple through the relevant agencies. I'm not a fan of firing people for mere 'human-error' related mistakes and have frequently defended people in similar positions; however I am also a huge fan of firing people who 'don't get it', i.e., don't understand the mind-set to optimally fix problems. She appears to not get it, not even close and she should be the very leader teaching us how to solve such problems rather than the person who requires education on such matters. Therefore she should go.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 28, 2009 11:47 AM
"And if I'm just an ordinary flyer, and I need to use the bathroom in that last hour... what do I do..... Piss in my pants????????"
There are plenty of chemical that will explode if exposed to water (or urine, for that matter). An enterprising terrorist could get on the plane with a nappy full of one of these and then wait till the plane is nearing its destination and then let loose in his pants!
At least we are finally seeing a positive side to fundamentalists approach to science education!
Thank goodness they all seem to be rubbish at even basic chemistry!
Then again maybe the current attempt was intentional - a new Al Qaeda tactic of setting fire to your own testicles in front of a shocked audience of westerners.
That will teach those cursed infidels!
Posted by: Sigmund | December 28, 2009 11:52 AM
Well, if you're really concerned about there being a bomb on a plane you should just pack a bomb yourself. The chances against there being TWO bombs on a plane must be astronomical.
Posted by: Blondin | December 28, 2009 11:54 AM
You can't be too cynical about the laziness, incompetence and depraved indifference of our govt.
Posted by: Troy Britain | December 28, 2009 12:05 PM
Ed:
George Carlin made that point ten years ago, and nothing substantial has changed.Posted by: Paul Lundgren | December 28, 2009 12:23 PM
It really should be a requirement, I think, that the head of the Department of Homeland Security be at least in close proximity to the reality that the rest of us live in.
I'd be happy just mandating that the head of DHS be required to go through the same TSA screening lines as the rest of us. Alone. With no entourage.
-Richard
Posted by: Richard | December 28, 2009 12:35 PM
Clearly, noting that it was the aforementioned law-abiding passengers who did the dirty work on this incident, giving those same passengers a freer hand in managing on-board terrorism is the only answer. We must allow concealed carry on all flights, foreign and domestic. I don't think that terrorist bozo would be quite so willing to light fire to his own nuts if he'd been staring down the barrel of my 1911.
Posted by: Looseleaf | December 28, 2009 12:41 PM
True, but they have undergone training in airline safety. Yes, they're undeniably incompetent. But what we're going off of are several highly publicized incidents of airline passengers acting heroically; how many more passengers would be inclined to react with complete, chaotic panic in response to a real or perceived threat?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 28, 2009 12:41 PM
Re Michael Heath @ #18
I don't have any particular opinion about Ms. Napolitano, who AFAIK, had a decent record as governor of Arizona. However, Spencer Ackerman reports on the Washington Independent that her remarks have been taken out of context, especially by the fucktards at the fascist news channel.
http://washingtonindependent.com/72207/if-you-take-her-out-of-context-then-yes-napolitano-said-something-dumb
Posted by: SLC | December 28, 2009 12:41 PM
hirst@8:
I think it may be you who are factually incorrect. I have flown out of Schiphol to the US at least a dozen times in the last 10 years and on every occasion have been screened at the gate, including a personal interview and, a couple of times, serious frisks, and it was always done by Dutch security personnel. The first American personnel I encounter there is at boarding. I have flown from there with Continental and Northwest. Schiphol has the most intense screening of any airport I have used, either in Europe or stateside. I was surprised this happened from there.
Posted by: Budbear | December 28, 2009 12:44 PM
There are plenty of chemical that will explode if exposed to water (or urine, for that matter). An enterprising terrorist could get on the plane with a nappy full of one of these and then wait till the plane is nearing its destination and then let loose in his pants!
No male would *ever* build a bomb like this (can't speak for females). Sure, you may be convinced that you will die a martyr in the explosion, and it will no longer matter -- but the thought that the first thing to go will be your between-legs equipment would be a show-stopper right there.
I mean, you wouldn't want to disappoint those 70 virgins waiting for you on the other side ;-).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 28, 2009 12:51 PM
that's not so impressive as the words make it sound, i don't think. for most kinds of safety, the approaches boil down to two options: either make it impossible for anyone to do anything evil, or keep a sharp weather eye out for people acting really hinky.
the first approach isn't applicable to passenger airlines, because that's the "force everybody to fly naked, blindfolded, and chained to their seats" approach. people who are deliberately trying to do evil things won't be entirely prevented with less. but the latter approach is what the good-guy passenger on this flight did; spot somebody doing something they shouldn't be, then get up and stop them. some training can certainly help with that, but clearly isn't absolutely necessary.
that should be (at least roughly) knowable from news reports, also. i'd think a planeful of people suddenly panicking ought to be as newsworthy as one random guy subduing a bomber. if people really are all that prone to blind, chaotic panic, CNN should be telling us about it on a regular basis --- are they?
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | December 28, 2009 12:54 PM
Sure thing, Looseleaf, a bunch of civilians waving firearms about in a pressurized cabin at 30000-odd feet is a PERFECT way to deter violence and keep passengers safe. Not.
The only reason concealed firearms look like a good idea now, is that the terrorists can't carry their own. And the reason for that is that we don't allow them to, remember?
I guess you're too young to remember how many planes got hijacked when terrorists WERE allowed to bring guns onboard? Obviously, allowing conceal-carry wasn't as good an idea as you think it is.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2009 1:01 PM
Looseleaf "We must allow concealed carry on all flights, foreign and domestic."
Getting caught in the crossfire at a 7/11 in Texas is bad enough. The same in a plane is too much, especially when "some people" think that "swarthy skin" = Al Qaeda. Tooth and claw is good enough. Missed shots with those don't poke holes in nearby people. Or the plane.
"I don't think that terrorist bozo would be quite so willing to light fire to his own nuts if he'd been staring down the barrel of my 1911."
Really? You think that pointing a gun at a guy who is trying to, and I can't stress this enough, blow himself up will make him change his mind?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 28, 2009 1:04 PM
I think the TSA is missing the point.
All these actions - 9/11, Richard Reid, this latest incident - were caused by passengers of the aircraft. Ban all passengers from airplanes, and they will be safe.
Problem solved. No need to thank me.
Posted by: dcsohl | December 28, 2009 1:08 PM
@Raging Bee
I realize that this question is incredibly stupid. There was a time when people could bring guns on planes? Like the same as I can now bring an MP3 player, except for guns?
Posted by: JohnV | December 28, 2009 1:17 PM
And since this guy had the explosive sewn into his underwear, And Richard Reid is the reason we have to take off our shoes now, how soon before we have to go through strip searches to get through security? And let's say, for the sake of argument, that commercial airlines could somehow be made completely, 100% safe. What's to stop terrorists from then going after major sporting events? Why couldn't someone get a Cesna, load it up with as many explosives as it could hold, and kamikaze it into the Superbowl stands?
@Nomen Nescio,
How about the "knock everyone out and stack them like cordwood" approach? Some people might have an alergic reaction to the sedative, but hey, nothing is to dangerous if it makes us safer, hmm?
/s
Posted by: Shawn Smith | December 28, 2009 1:18 PM
And if I'm just an ordinary flyer, and I need to use the bathroom in that last hour... what do I do..... Piss in my pants???????? There's some awesome Indian food available on a new transatlantic carrier - lotsa drinks, a meal and a snack! Pity the guys who decide to stuff themselves on their way over to the US! Last I heard they were serving chicken vindaloo/shrimp curry for meal and v.spicy fish fingers/samosa chole for the snack!
Posted by: jnani | December 28, 2009 1:20 PM
It's a good thing that these alleged al-Qaeda operatives work solo. If this guy had come aboard with some back-up to run interference, he might have had time and space to properly assembled and detonate his bomb (assuming of course, it was able to go boom).
If al-Qaeda ever followed the plans of the TWA-355 hijackers, four Croatians and the American wife of the lead hijacker, the passengers might not be able to stop the terrostists, or, even if they do stop the terrorists, be compelled to release them.
Posted by: History Punk | December 28, 2009 1:26 PM
I won't even go into the most effective form of airplane-based terrorism, bioterrorism, here, but I will say that I know what the obvious solution to all this is: Trains. They can't get off the tracks, so they can't be driven into anything other than their pre-determined destinations. Nor do they fall out of the sky.
Or we could all just be put into hibernation for all flights (a la most sci fi) but I guess that wouldn't work for things like the Hudson crash.
So yeah, trains it is!
Posted by: JustaTech | December 28, 2009 1:29 PM
Re: Napoiltano, as the interview transcript linked to in comment #18 and her own follow up interview on the Today Show this morning reveal, she was indeed taken out of context. I disagree that she is exemplary of the administrative incompetence under discussion. On the contrary, I think her responses in the televised interviews thus far reveal an inclination toward the kind of measured, systematic approach to the problem that might actually generate some discussion on what sorts of policy changes might make it more difficult for such nutcases to carry out their plans.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips | December 28, 2009 1:33 PM
Actually, our first line of defense is the certainty that Bad Guys are hopelessly stupid. The second is that they don't have access to the Internet or any books newer than the 18th century.
If it weren't for those two facts, evildoers would use one of the thousands of methods that any freshman engineering class could come up with and which have been documented in novels published before Janet Napolitano was born.
To mention just one: thermite, in tens-of-kilograms quantities, is not detectable by even the most extreme of TSA screening processes. Care to imagine what happens when kilograms of thermite go off near the aluminum skin of an aircraft which is conveniently providing said skin with a Mach 0.7 forced airfeed?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 28, 2009 1:39 PM
@34
Whether it was legally permissible or not, I think Bee is referring to a time when boarding a plane was like boarding a train. There were no identification checks or security checkpoints. There was absolutely nothing in place to prevent an individual from boarding a plane with a concealed weapon.
Posted by: Dr X | December 28, 2009 1:55 PM
I certainly hope that your comment is a Poe because, if it isn't, you are a grade-A moron. First, as has been pointed out, you are going to intimidate a suicide bomber with your pistol? Just freakin' brilliant. Second, let's say you shoot "terrorist bozo." The bullet from a .45 caliber M1911A1 ACP will likely slam right through that guy and hit other passengers, the side of the plane, both...
In the first scenario, the "terrorist bozo" looks at you, the [I presume] American bozo, smiles, and blows you both to hell.
In the second scenario you shot and [we again presume] actually hit said "bozo terrorist" and then hit and kill or seriously wound innocent passengers or, worse yet, blow out a large chunk of a pressurized aircraft flying at 30,000 feet traveling at something like 500 mph. Again you become a [I presume] American bozo who is responsible for the crash of flight "you freakin' moron."
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 28, 2009 2:03 PM
Yeah, back in the 50s and 60s there was little, if any, checking of passengers. Hence the William Shatner Twilight Zone episode where he shoots at the thing on the wing.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 28, 2009 2:05 PM
Tacitus @17:
Maybe there'd be more damage if a plane blew up over a major city. I'm not convinced. We had an accidental crash, complete destruction of a passenger airliner, over New York City in late 2001. Five people on the ground died. That's a plane landing on a residential neighborhood in the largest city in the United States. When terrorists blew up a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland, eleven people on the ground died.
The other thing about the "last hour of flight" thing is that it assumes that you're coming in over more or less empty land until you get to your destination. A hypothetical terrorist attacking a plane on, say, the Amsterdam-Detroit route might well have other opportunities when the plane was over a major city.
There's also something touchingly naive about the assumption that nobody hostile and dangerous could board a plane in the United States. After all, the 9/11 attackers had to use trans-Atlantic flights, right?
(On the other hand, I'm booked on a flight to Canada on Wednesday, and don't really want to have to put up with the latest set of silly rules. But this shouldn't be about my personal convenience. I don't actually like airplanes falling out of the sky over my city, accidentally or otherwise.)
Posted by: Vicki | December 28, 2009 2:06 PM
JohnV: Dr X is right, I was referring to a time when it was much easier to get guns onboard passenger jets, though still illegal.
And my point, in response to Loosescrew, was that if civilians are able to get concealed guns onto planes, then chances are, terrorists will have the same ability, and we'll be back to the '70s in terms of airline security -- and that won't be an improvement.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2009 2:09 PM
Ok, that's comforting to hear. I was going to be amazed if it was ever permissible. Amazed and terrified :p
Posted by: JohnV | December 28, 2009 2:16 PM
That's it. I'm "flying" Amtrak from now on.
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 28, 2009 2:26 PM
dogmeatib:
Although your other points are valid, you might want to check this information and this other link out.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | December 28, 2009 2:27 PM
Spencer Ackerman is right about this being out of context. When I made reference to it last night (when this post was written), I hadn't seen the quote in context. Still not the smartest way to phrase it, I think, but the context clearly makes it much more reasonable than the isolated quote makes it appear.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 28, 2009 3:01 PM
I found a 1987 article on the history of law pertaining to the transport of weapons on aircraft in the Journal of Air Law and Commerce:
For those interested in the subject, there is much more in the article.
Posted by: Dr X | December 28, 2009 4:25 PM
Holy hell so in 1960 you could waltz onto a plane with whatever (guns rifles shotguns...)? I mean, I know air travel was much less common and all, but damn.
Posted by: JohnV | December 28, 2009 4:32 PM
SLC wrote: "To be fair about all of this, and not to let the TSA entirely off the hook, it should be noted that this miscreant boarded an aircraft in Nigeria, and transferred to a Detroit bound plane in Amsterdam. Perhaps, unfortunately, the TSA doesn't have any jurisdiction in those two places."
I read in this morning's local paper that Amsterdam (Schliepol?) has more "sniffer" machines which can detect PETN than just about any airport, but is not allowed to run U.S.-bound passengers through them. No reason was given for that rule.
Posted by: Chris Winter | December 28, 2009 4:46 PM
Pieter B wrote: "I don't think such a view is cynical at all, I think it's a perfectly rational analysis of the way TSA has approached the problem of airline security. Salon's "Patrick Smith," who writes their "Ask the Pilot" feature, dubbed it "security theater" years ago. He once had a butter knife confiscated by TSA when boarding an airplane he was going to pilot."
Well, obviously that was necessary. He might have used it to hijack himself — much like the way Cleavon Little held himself at gunpoint in Blazing Saddles. ;-)
Posted by: Chris Winter | December 28, 2009 4:49 PM
D. C. Sessions wrote: "To mention just one: thermite, in tens-of-kilograms quantities, is not detectable by even the most extreme of TSA screening processes. Care to imagine what happens when kilograms of thermite go off near the aluminum skin of an aircraft which is conveniently providing said skin with a Mach 0.7 forced airfeed?"
We had similar discussions on Orkut, back in the day. How does everyone here feel about discussing methods to bring down airplanes? The consensus on Orkut was that it's not a good idea.
Posted by: Chris Winter | December 28, 2009 4:54 PM
John V:
Congress passed the first prohibition on carriage of "loaded firearms" on aircraft in 1958. I suspect (don't know for sure) that the concern at that time was about accidental discharge, not hijacking or terrorism.
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/49/49USC46505.html
Posted by: Dr X | December 28, 2009 4:56 PM
I just heard a newsblip on the radio that airline passengers are saying the new security rules are so confusing they're not really sure how to comply with them. A spokesman for the TSA says they're supposed to be confusing. This way the terrorists can't take advantage of them. It's not a bug, it's a feature!!
I'm just waiting for the first time a flight attendant walks up to a passenger and says, "Pardon me, sir, is that a personal item in your lap or are you just ..." NONONONO, forget it!
Posted by: ChicagoMolly | December 28, 2009 7:09 PM
Meh, Hanlon's Razor: Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice. Think of a case where similar stupidity happens: DVD piracy. Annoying ads are put onto legally-bought DVDs that you often can't skip through, telling people not to pirate. Of course, the only people who hear this are the ones who didn't. You have to put up with extra hassle when you buy legally that you don't when you pirate, so the messages give an incentive in the wrong direction.
In that case, it's not just the illusion of trying to combat the problem, it's just a problem with not thinking through their solution. We know that piracy hurts legal DVD sales, so manufacturers wouldn't purposely try to drive people towards piracy. They just accomplish that through stupidity.
In this case, it's possible that the TSA doesn't really care about safety, but it seems more likely to me they're just making the most obvious change to the rules possible, without even thinking through whether it's the best.
Posted by: Infophile | December 28, 2009 8:54 PM
The Shoe Bomber. The Tightie Whitie Bomber. They don't need to take the plane down to claim success. The added "security measures" that follow each of these incidents mean that the thousands of people who fly everyday have to get to the airport ever earlier. This will gradually impact the country's productivity as more and more people are spending more and more hours hanging out.
Posted by: Gerry L | December 28, 2009 9:05 PM
I wish it were painful for people to be so dumb.
Seriously, if that's the policy you draw from this incident, you have problems.
Posted by: Katharine | December 28, 2009 9:16 PM
Re Napolitano's quote being taken out of context by others . . .
My response was not based on other news sources taking her quote out of context, I never perused any of those or their criticisms; in fact I wasn't even aware others were criticizing her. Instead my criticism that she appears to not "get it" was exclusively based on her interview on Meet the Press in its totality. If I were the President, the obligation that Ms. Napolitano actually gets it would be on her, especially given her statement:
No, no, no. The 'most important thing' is that a suspected terrorist got on a plane with explosive material and this is not the first failure we've had, meaning previous efforts to either contain or eradicate such risks failed.
In addition, I didn't hear any statements from Ms. Napolitano that parsed the differences between containment measures, corrective action measures, and preventative maintenance of current processes and future modifications. Quite frankly I don't think she's got an understanding of how to manage such a process from a cultural or leadership perspective.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 28, 2009 10:18 PM
I think the "important thing" is that we aren't putting the guy-who-brings-a-device on the plane into context.
Think of this: prior to 9/11, plane hijackings were pretty few and far between. It wasn't like it was easy, even then. The 9/11 hijackers simply brought on the plane something nobody was looking for: knives. But the fact that so few people had hijacked a plane prior to that is indicative of success, not failure.
In fact, there were about a dozen plane bombings of any sort prior to the 9/11 attacks. (I am talking about flights originating in the US). The very first was in the 50s. It was an insurance scam -- a guy wanted to kill his mom. (He was executed IIRC).
Anyways, we are looking to stop something that is, fundamentally, pretty rare. Most terrorists do NOT try to blow up a plane when there are a thousand easier targets. Think of the IRA. Even the Tamil Tigers didn't focus on airlines. But they got us to react as though they do.
No, the real issue with all the extra security is two fold. First is social control. The whole point of security theater is to get people to accept certain controls. We already have what amounts to an internal passport system in the US, as intrusive as anything the USSR came up with. The difference is that it is privately administered. Don't believe it? Try going anywhere without ID.
The second is the problem of making the US a target, which the Department of Defense under the leadership of Bush (and now Obama) has been handily doing for years. Think about it: you (or your family, or friends and relations) are the target of drones daily. THey are not safe. The US says it is blowing up terrorists while supporting corrupt and dictatorial governments. Then we kill a few more civilians to make the point. If the Afghan air force were lobbing bombs into Michigan and destroying a chunk of Muskegon in the process, killing a few dozen people, what reaction would Americans have? Even if they said they were killing McVeigh's pals?
Terrorism used to be a criminal matter (hence the long disputes over prisoner treatment with the IRA -- the UK position was that they were criminals, not POWs). Now it is a military one. That was a bad idea to make it so, and we are living with the results now.
Posted by: Jesse | December 29, 2009 8:14 AM
Just a couple of things I'd like to pick up Jesse on here. Whilst the Tamil Tigers didn't attempt hijack and aerial terror on the State of Sri Lanka, they did an impressive job of demolishing the best part of Air Lanka on the ground during a ground assault at Columbo airport, using RPG's and other weapons that came to hand. Secondly, the IRA were one of the most sucessful and deadly terrorist organisations ever to operate in the developed world. Their success was in large part part due to 'third' countries contributing funds and in some cases, arms, munitions and training to the cause.
The British government have always dealt with the threat of terror within its shores as one of upholding the Rule of Law and never as a military campaighn, even when, as in the case of Northern Ireland the military were heavily engaged in keeping the peace. Even today, with the threat of Islamic terror knocking on the door, the British Government insist that it is above all; the Rule of Law that is at stake here and not ideological, religious or cross-boarder disputes with any other nation.
When do we prosecute people who attack us and our way of life as criminals and when do we lock them up as military combatants? Do we make the distinction when an act of terror occurs on our own turf, i.e. within our own shores? Viz: Criminal. Or, when the attack comes from within the country we have invaded and occupied? Viz: Military Combatant. The Nation State faces the dilema of giving the oxygen of some legitamacy to the cause of the terrorist by claiming that a war is being fought, although war it blatently is, but a war with no formal declaration or even clear intent. Far better to stick with criminal law when dealing with miscreants who have no clear aims, legitimacy or stake in society let alone democracy.
Posted by: BritBat | December 29, 2009 9:05 AM
Agreed, BritBat -- and also you should know that I am from one of the cities in the US that contributed a lot to the IRA. (Boston). If we were really consistent in treating terrorism as a criminal act under the current rules, half the population would be in Gitmo. The Tamil assaults you describe are more akin to a real military campaign, though, I think.
I'm with you on treating terrorism as a criminal act precisely because it a) fits the definition and b) denies legitimacy to terrorists.
I'm also of the opinion that understanding why people do this is not the same as sympathizing with the method. I don't disagree with the IRA that the deal to split Ireland was a bad one. I do condemn strongly their methods.
People turn to terrorism, however, when they feel that the relevant government is not listening to anything else. Think about it: terrorism is hard to do. It takes up your weekends. While building a thermite bomb is easy, think about delivering the thing and you realize it takes a bit of planning at the very least.
People who feel they have no stake, that the government will never listen, that they are no more than animals as far as the authorities are concerned, will take up arms in some fashion. People who do not with you to rule them will find a way to kick you out -- even at the cost of their own lives.
Also remember: NO terrorist organization has ever been able to bring down any government from afar, or even do much damage to the country involved. The 9/11 attacks were horrific. But they didn't do all that much damage to the country as a whole. Osama bin Laden could never, ever hope to inflict on the US the kind of damage that, say, the Germans or Russians could. He will never be able to stop us producing things, or cause more than nuisance-level disruptions to the economy.
If the US were a 50% Muslim nation with the entire population oppressed by the government in really horrific ways, with nobody having a job and an outside power calling the shots, the situation is different.
But that isn't the case. Our "way of life" is in no danger whatsoever from terrorists -- the danger is our reaction to it.
We have, as a nation, managed to convince the entire world -- our allies included -- that we will not listen. We have shown, by our actions, that we are absolutely blind to suffering, at least when it is Muslims who suffer. (In that sense, the seeds for this were laid in the 1990s. For many Muslims the Balkans were their Spanish Civil War).
What the hell reaction do we expect? That they would greet us with flowers and love? Why should Afghans not support the insurgency there? The US is the one killing their friends, their relations, their neighbors. Karzai is a corrupt puppet. Again I ask, if it were us in the same situation, would we not proudly declare that we were going to fight? The Brits did a lot less horrible things in 1775. We proudly say we are willing to fight over taxes. Why should anyone else be different?
I remember an old line from Ben Hur. A Roman asks Ben Hur how to get peace in Judea. "Withdraw your legions," he says. Did the Roman listen? Nah.
By withdrawing our legions, by ending support for people like Karzai, by walking the walk of human rights and not saying "well, he kills terrorists, so anything else is fine" I submit that much of the support that extremists get would start to erode.
One of the better strategic decisions the Brits made was NOT to invade Ulster. Can you imagine the reaction in Ireland if instead of treating the IRA as criminals, they bombed Dublin or Boston? Maybe randomly imprisoned a chunk of Irish Catholics indefinitely? Threw a few bombs at Derry?
By not doing that, support for the IRA eventually fell off, to where Sinn Fein got what, less than 10% of the vote?
But no. We're Amer'kuns. We don't have to think about history at all. Doesn't apply to us, no sir.
Posted by: Jesse | December 29, 2009 11:32 AM
Thanks Shawn, but I actually wasn't referring to explosive decompression as much as large holes (say fist sized) blasted into the rather thin aluminum hull of a passenger airliner.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 29, 2009 12:26 PM
Thanks Jesse - Your point about oppressed peoples having no choice but to turn to acts of terrorism is well made. Israel is a clear example of a nation born as a direct result of terrorist supported antagonism against the British occupiers of that region post WWII. There are numerous other examples where terrorism has prefaced real political change and social progress for the oppressed the world over. True democracy never has an easy birth. The big difference now about the 'War on Terror' as promulgated by GWB and wars of independence and democracy is that the politics are startlingly different and polarised. We have religious dogma and social myopia pitted against freedom of speech and the free market. How will that ever be reconciled peacfully?
The 'Peace Process' in the UK was started when, in great secrecy, the government of the day via interloceters, actually sat down with the terrorists and thrashed out a settlement that was a compromise acceptable to all at the time. This led to Sinn Fein entering the Northern Ireland Assembly as equal partners with their sworn enemies. They won their seats democratically, with way more than ten percent of the vote.
The UK Govt did 'Intern' Catholics without trial as an emergency measure. The nororious 'H' Blocks were our Gitmo. The IRA terrorist Bobby Sands famously starved himself to death there in protest at the British occupation of Northern Ireland and the unwillingness of the British Govt to recognise him and his fellow internees as anything other than violent criminals, or I should say, suspected violent criminals.
I also agree that the real danger from terrorism is how our elected leaders deal with it. The IRA were dangerous and effective. I remember hearing bombs exploding miles from where I lived as yet another Army Recruiting Office got trashed by a very large and destructive bomb in the middle of the night, and yes, ocassionally innocent people did get severly mangled or even killed. The downtown centre of the City of Manchester was effectively raised by the IRA as one of their last 'Mainland' bombing campaigns. Thats not just a pub or maybe a pub and the post office next to it, that was two city blocks worth of peoples livlihoods, offices and stores and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of reconstruction. I have to say, they did a good job in the latter and probably for the better in the former too!
My point is this; in comparison, the level of threat we now face in Britain from Islamic terrorism is pretty low. As evidenced by our friend with the exploding pants. The approach is once again Low tech, high yield'. But lets get this threat in perspective. The UK government have implemented measures now to counter this threat which erode civil liberties that have been upheld for hundreds of years. I have personally been pulled over by the cops under 'The Prevention of Terrorism Act' whilst travelling in to work, and when asked 'Do you know why you have been stopped?' was told 'Because you were travelling in an area where there are prominant public buildings'. The real reason I was stopped actually was not because it looked like I was just setting up a mortar cannon on the lawn outside the Prime Ministers office but because I look like the perfect antithesis of a jihadist in fact. The Political Correctness of the times requires racial and ethnic balance in the random stop and search of 'suspects'.
The people of Afganistan I imagine, would dearly loved to be left alone by western do-gooders wishing to introduce democracy to their country. They don't do Democracy very well in that region of the world you may have noticed? So, why should we expect them to embrace it with open arms now? Hundreds of years of feudalism has created a fiercly independent country, if you can call it that. Ten years of western intervention there has not made things better for the Afghan on the block or for Afghanistan in general.
Posted by: BritBat | December 29, 2009 2:12 PM
D00d, you don't have to be cynical to come to this conclusion. You just have to be fucking awake.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | December 29, 2009 4:45 PM
Posted by: llewelly | December 29, 2009 10:18 PM
FWIW, I flew from Omaha to LA today and was selected for a random full-body pat-down. I don't fit a standard terrorist demographic profile, but I'm OK with that, believe it or not. Weighting toward the profile but doing true randomized searches in adition is a good strategy.
Posted by: Pieter B | December 29, 2009 10:50 PM
Wow. That "last hour" thing just astounds. I knew the TSA was ineffectual and more concerned about hassling people enough to make the idjuts feel safe than they are about actually safety.... but this just takes it to a whole new level.
Posted by: James Sweet | December 30, 2009 11:54 AM
BritBat:
I suspect that you're generally right, and I'm usually inclined to let groups of people govern themselves however they see fit. Still, I think that how much an Afghan citizen wants to be left alone is very much dependent upon whether his particular faction will be in power or oppressed in the final equilibrium.
At least, that's what I'd be worrying about if I lived in a country with an unstable government and a strong anti-democratic predisposition.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | December 30, 2009 1:32 PM