TSA Spends Almost $1 Billion On Behavior Detection Program, Detects Zero Terrorists
The WaPo's Ashley Halsey III reports on Rep. Mark Sanford's questioning of the TSA's John Pistole about the TSA's SPOT screening program (supposed behavior detection. It has detected only an exceptionaly tiny number of offenders that had nothing to do with plots against planes or airports -- stuff like expired passports were the sorts of things found):

The essence of several House members' arguments was captured in an exchange between Sanford and Pistole near the conclusion of the two-hour hearing. It underscored concerns both about racial or ethnic profiling and that people in stressful travel situations are more likely to look suspicious than they otherwise would.

"This notion of how do [you] get into somebody else's head? I think it's a very difficult place to be," Sanford said. "So you have a system that's set up to look for symptoms [of] stress, fear or deception, but I would ask you, Mr. Pistole, if you were a young kid that maybe got off the track at an early age, . . . you do have a criminal record, and a law enforcement fellow is standing in front of you asking you questions, do you believe you would exhibit stress or fear?"

"It all depends on the individual," Pistole replied. "Yes, sure, potentially."

"What if you were a staunch right-wing conspiracist with very strong anti-government leanings, you've posted some things that probably weren't the best to post on the Internet, but you had the invisibility that goes with the Internet, but now you've got a law enforcement officer probing, asking you questions, would you exhibit stress or fear?"

"Again," Pistole said, "it depends on the individual, but potentially, sure."

"You're an immigrant whose dad and mom came here illegally, would you exhibit stress or fear if someone was asking you questions?

"All situational, again," Pistole said.

..."Which I think raises the point which the GAO report has brought," Sanford said. "You go through a screening system which essentially undresses somebody, you send their equipment through radar detection and other devices. The question is, from a civil liberties standpoint, given those other tests, do you in addition have to go through a screening process based on somebody's interpretation of what might be in your brain?"

"You raise good points, congressman," the unflappable Pistole replied. "There's no perfect science, there's no perfect art of this. . . . This has been over seven years and we have screened by observation over 4 billion passengers, it actually comes out to 50 cents and in some instances 25 cents per passenger."

"In reverse," Sanford broke in, "you could say, a billion dollars [spent] with no results."

"I would say there's a result in terms of deterrence," Pistole said.

Yes, it's deterring us from getting the national debt down by $1 billion dollars -- plus interest.

Oh, wait -- do you think that's not what he meant?

Jonathan Turley lays out the details from SPOT:

Only 0.59% of the passengers flagged were arrested under its Screening of Passengers by Observation Technique (SPOT) program. SPOT is working in 176 airports to "identify passenger behaviors indicative of stress, fear, or deception and refer passengers" and their baggage for additional screening.

There were 61,000 SPOT referrals. Of those, 8,700 (13.6%) were referred to a law enforcement officer and, of those, 365 (4%) "resulted in an arrest." That is 365 of 61,000 SPOT referrals or 0.59%. The reasons for arrest are predictable (1) fraudulent documents, (2) illegal alien, (3) other, (4) outstanding warrants, (5) suspected drugs, and (6) undeclared currency. The success rate of the program is likely no more than a random stop program. If you stop people in airports or train stations and subject them to questioning and a background check, you will find the same type of violations in the same rough numbers.

At 365 arrests, we are talking about rough $2.5 million an arrest for things like undeclared currency.

Turley points out:

Congress continues to spend wildly on defense and national security regardless of documented waste or failures. Even titanic failures do not result in discipline or termination for officials.