The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive security information.

I wonder how many "officials" are paid to say shit like this in order to try and persuade the general public that other "officials" have to sanction these atrocities that they're committing in the name of "safety"?

Totally OT, Obaba's got a Twitter account!!

Lookee here:

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/05/7018734-got-questions-for-obama-tweet-em-now

Okay, no scanners, no pat-downs.

But how do you stop someone from bringing a bomb on a plane?

If you search only those people who appear to be a possible terrorist, then terrorists will adopt the look of non-terrorists.

Ergo, the pretty blonde girl will have a bomb in her backpack.

Does anyone here have a system for stopping the pretty blonde girl with a bomb in her backpack?

Regarding Obama's twitter account - please do not get excited. He is also going to hold a "town hall" meeting via twitter - still don't get excited. Anyone who actually thinks Obama himself will be at the keyboard is delusional.

This is a channel where carefully selected questions will be given very carefully crafted answers by his campaign staff. Obama himself will be given enough of a summary to avoid any major gaffes - to pretend that he was somehow involved.

This is all about the 2012 campaign.

Does anyone here have a system for stopping the pretty blonde girl with a bomb in her backpack?

Pretty sure a standard x-ray scan would stop that.

But this raises the question, in my mind: At this point Al Qaeda doesn't even need to blow anything else up. They could just keep leaking increasingly ridiculous "plans" for future attacks and watch us cripple our own transportation industry trying to keep up.

Oh don't worry, a_random_guy, I'm not excited at all. In fact, I can't stand Obaba. And I don't do Twitter anyway. I was being kinda sarcastic about the whole thing; I just forgot the sarcasm tags.

Sorry!

o.O

At this point Al Qaeda doesn't even need to blow anything else up. They could just keep leaking increasingly ridiculous "plans" for future attacks and watch us cripple our own transportation industry trying to keep up.

Seriously excellent point, there, JD. How do we know that's not exactly what they're doing now? And laughing their asses off about it all?

Oh, hell, why don't they just dissect us as the airport and then sew us back up? We sign a waiver, denying TSA any responsibility for infection, bleeding, death, etc.

BOTU makes a good point, 25 yr old musim men might start dressing like califonia bleach blondes and we'd never know.

Also what better way to snaek a bomb on a plane then to recruit the Obama's kids? We'd better start screening them, for saftey

This is stupid. First of all, we've already discussed that if you're going to have a bomb inside a person (whether by orifice insertion or by surgery), the surrounding body tissue is going to mute the explosive force, and the result will mainly just be a disgusting mess. And there's the problem of where in the body can you actually put enough explosive to do significant damage.

Second, if somebody does manage to do this: how in the hell does the TSA think it's going to catch them with a pat-down? Is the guy at the gate with the rubber gloves enough of a medical expert so that he can tell if that lump in your abdomen is a bomb, or a tumor that you're flying to a specialist to get removed? This is beyond ridiculous. It's turning into the "satanic child abuse" of our decade. Bunch of perverts.

Having said all that, I have never condoned the oh-so-European attitude of "terrorism just happens; there's nothing you can do about it". Explosives detection has advanced a long way since the last time it was tried, right after 9/11. A proper machine could even sniff explosives that were implanted in a person, if the person had enough implanted to do any good. As far as intel and basic investigation, we don't have to wait on new technology; we can do that now. (And by most accounts, certain parts of the government are doing it, and doing it well.) We can close the easy loopholes. If you wanted to bomb a plane, would you go to the cartoonish extreme of removing somebody's liver, replacing it with a bomb, and hoping they live long enough to get on the plane with it? Or would you take the far easier tack of bribing a baggage handler or maintenance worker to put the bomb on the plane for you? Fix the things we can fix; reduce the risk to a residual level. From there, we can accept the rest.

Wow. Someone at the TSA finally got a copy of "Dark Knight" on VHS and now it's "Oh noes, there's a bom in yr vag!".

Good god, what a bunch of halfwits.

AA:

Yes, I dislike Islam as practiced also.

But if Islam starts using pretty blonde girl converts--even unwittingly--to carry bombs in pink backpacks onto planes, what are our options?

Suppose they start using grandmas in adult diapers?

No scanners, no pat downs?

The point is, BOTU, that we shouldn't be dealing with "what ifs". We need to be dealing with what IS, and the TSA is only providing theatre, not reality.

"I think we need to do as the Israelis do, and accept that there's some risk to life, and hope that we don't get offed."

And use racial profiling, and train your POPULATION to be on the look out for suspicious activity and how to deal with it. Instead, we don't want to offend any one race, so TSA offends everyone, and we are the sheeple while the "experts" are the only ones who can handle terrorists.

To the people who say TSA checks as practiced are fine with them for "security" purposes, where do you draw the line? Perhaps at the liver biopsy before boarding?

Flynne, to expand on that a bit: Recruiting cute 15-year-old girls to carry bombs in their backpacks is the sort of thing the Islamists would do, even if they have to do it by kidnapping and brainwashing/drugging them. It's not a bad thing to try to anticipate what avenues of attack the enemy might use in the future. However: we've already addressed this one. The pretty young girl's backpack goes in the carry-on luggage scanner. The scanner and its operator either find the bomb or they don't. That outcome is not influenced whatsoever by the TSA pervert sticking his finger up the girl's twat.

Al Qaeda doesn't even need to blow anything else up. They could just keep leaking increasingly ridiculous "plans" for future attacks and watch us cripple our own transportation industry trying to keep up.

They have explicitly stated this, many times. The whole point has always been to get Americans to terrorize -- and bankrupt -- themselves. Mission Accomplished.

"And use racial profiling, and train your POPULATION to be on the look out for suspicious activity and how to deal with it"

Look on the bright side, Rebecca: that's exactly what people are doing, spontaneously. As soon as the Panty Bomber started behaving suspiciously, a Dutch tourist & other passengers put him in a headlock and beat the shit out of him. The Times Square bomber's smoking car was spotted by an alert hot dog vendor. Remember the Glasgow Airport attack 4 years ago? Ordinary Scotsmen walked right up and kicked those burning terrorists in the balls before they had a chance to set anyone else on fire.

Here in the real world, not the surreal world of TSA security theater, free people everywhere ARE on the look out for suspicious Muslims, and they know how to deal with them. That's the biggest single contribution to their own safety.

Obviously, if you only search and scan carry-on, and not the person, then bombs and weapons will be brought on board on the person.

The Israelis, who I admire, will pull your clothes off if they want to, and stop you from boarding.

One solution is to let each airline choose its form of security, and then passengers could choose airlines. In practice, it would probably come down to the same thing. All airlines would gravitate to a standard, for economies of scale.

Instead or railing against the TSA, you would rail against commercial airliners--like the Southwest agent recently vilified here.

Gotta say, can't get a boner for this issue.

We do not need the government to take care of us. The airlines are perfectly able to handle their own security. We do not need government stooges to do this for us. This stuff is completely out of control. I am very glad I do not have to fly to earn my living because I can avoid the airports. However, it won't stop there. People need to wake up.

Don't trained dogs do a better job at this than any piece of equipment? why is this never mentioned as a viable option?

Don't trained dogs do a better job at this than any piece of equipment? why is this never mentioned as a viable option?

Right?? Damn, that makes better sense than all of the TSA theatre going on! Oh, but wait, dogs have to be fed and cleaned up after, and people are afraid of dogs! Nope, better stick with the slugs that are the TSA, less trauma for the sheeple! Personally, I'd rather deal with a dog that with those TSA assholes.

BOTU, I have a question, how many pretty little blonde girls are eager to blow themselves up for Allah?

If you focus on the 20ish year old male students from Terroristastan, you've eliminated 90% of their potential recruitment pool.

Isn't that a lot better than patting down 85 year old grandmothers from Iowa traveling for medical treatment?

Our primary enemies are middle eastern Muslims. That means most of them are going to have very similar features. Could they use Chechens? Possibly, but Chechens are busy with Russians, and probably couldn't give two shits about the struggle of Osama's ilk against America.

Islam is a vile religion, but different groups of Muslims focus on different sets of infidels, and their cooperation is not universal, or even overly common.

That's it, I don't care what Amy says about kids on airplanes. I'm bringing my 3-year-old on every flight I take from now on. He's elite with our carrier, behaves from checkin to baggage claim like a Delta Kryptonite Medallion, knows where he belongs (and where you belong), and he bites (ok, not for a year but given the right motivation, I'm sure we can bring that habit back for the good of the republic). Anyone carrying a bomb in his body cavity or a rollaboard over the recommended size that's not "stored in under seat in front of you or in overhead above you" better expect to carry their arse home in a bucket. All I have to do is tell him that s/he ate all the flight attendant's ginger cookies and it's sooooo game over.

Don't trained dogs do a better job at this than any piece of equipment? why is this never mentioned as a viable option?
---

There is nothing better than a dog for sniffing things out - cadavers, drugs, explosives, just about anything that leaves a chemical trace in the air. But dogs and trainers are expensive to train and take several months (about $10,000 per dog). And plenty of dogs wash out of the program. The TSA scrapped the mechanical chemical sniffers (remember the litttle scrap of cloth they'd run over your bag's zippers?). But the machines were too pricey and complicated to maintain. And you have to pay a dog handler more than $14/ hour. Think TSA is gonna spring for that?

But yes, if they were genuinely worried about bombs, they'd invest in dogs.

They have explicitly stated this, many times. The whole point has always been to get Americans to terrorize -- and bankrupt -- themselves. Mission Accomplished.

Lisa - I agree. Regardless of military outcomes, and all cliches aside, the terrorists have already won. Barring wholesale changes in America following 2012, 9/11 will be remembered as the beginning of the end for the US (and Western Civ).

Can't have dogs - they offend the muslims who are trying to kill us.

Yeah, I know. Far better that we get molested by TSA than give offense to our enemies. Well, this level of insanity cannot endure.

The Israelis, who I admire, will pull your clothes off if they want to, and stop you from boarding.

No if you are suspicious they will go thru all your bags (for real not like TSA security theater). And if you are real suspicious they just deny boarding.

"They could just keep leaking increasingly ridiculous "plans" for future attacks and watch us cripple our own transportation industry trying to keep up."

Lots of good points being made, but this one is absolutely brilliant. I do get the fear folks have when it comes to flying. I can travel by plane when it's the most practical option, but I've never been crazy about it. The idea of plummeting 20,000 feet is terrifying. No one wants to die in a plane crash or explosion, especially when one imagines it was preventable. But we've got to find a way to come to terms with that fear and deal with it rationally. Then again, maybe it's too far gone at this point.

In case you need another reason to distrust the TSA:

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/07/tsa_agent_nelson_santiago_ipad_grand_theft.php

Check out the demotivational poster image in the linked article (TSA = gate rape).

More:

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/07/tsa_agent_nelson_santiago_theft_lax_jfk.php