Originally Posted by
nachtnebel
I hope so also. From the frequency of these reports over the years, it is evident that TSA has no ability whatsoever to screen these types of passengers. TSA basically either has to waive their screening or deny this entire class of passengers the right to move about the country.
Does anyone have a better option for screening the cast once it alarms? Unwrapping it is a bad idea, but if it alarms the (notoriously over-inclusive ETD machine), what can the screeners do to rule out the presence of explosives? I don't like the conclusion of this story better than anyone who has posted in this thread, but I'm not sure I have a better solution that wouldn't allow a cast made of explosives to fly.
Philosophically I believe the outcome of any government-run airport security screening in the USA should be either letting the passenger fly or referring them for immediate arrest and charges. Any other outcome is a 5th-amendment deprivation of liberty or property IMO (i.e., I don't believe TSA should be able to confiscate/ban items that are not
actual WEI unlike the current policy that lets them confiscate ban non-WEI such as water because they are too incompetent to tell the difference*).
The burden of proof must be on TSA to prove that the item is a threat not on the passenger to prove that their person/property is not a threat. ETD alarm is clearly not probable cause for an arrest given the false positive rate. Banning a passenger based on an ETD alarm and nothing else sounds like a traffic cop charging a person with DUI based on smelling alcohol in a parked car with no breath test, blood test, impaired driving, or other evidence of DUI.
I agree this creates a real-life dilemma as posted by
Ari, but TSA put itself in this position and is responsible for finding a resolution. Off the top of my head, options would be having an actual explosives expert visually examine the cast (maybe over video conference), screen the passenger for "paraphernalia" (i.e., detonator), or [gasp] taking the risk that a middle-aged American female plant-biology professor flying from a technical conference back to her university is actually suffering from a broken arm and not a suicidal terrorist mastermind. Say what you will about profiling based on various controversial and non-controversial criteria, but the totality of the circumstances should be considered before banning an American citizen from traveling.
(*I would allow a temporary exception of no longer than 90-days if a "new" threat was discovered, but no more. No 12-year water ban. No long-term laptop ban.)