Abdo was already being discharged from the Army before he went AWOL. For those who aren't familiar, AWOL soldiers are given felony status in the NCIC.

So please explain how someone like Abdo would have qualified under risk based security screening.

Because he was AWOL? By the way, is it weird that a guy being discharged was AWOL? That is the one time I would definitely not be AWOL.

Actually I think the case is that he was granted conscientious objector status and was getting ready to be discharged. Then the Army found child porn on his computer and was set to court martial him. That is when he went AWOL. I dont think he had reached the discharged status yet. He would be moved from AWOL status to deserter status after a certain point but remain in the Army system (and probably entered in the NCIC system as such).

OK.

I see I have to break it down.

1. After already enlisting in the Army, Abdo claims to be a conscientious objector due to his Muslim faith.
2. The Army routinely investigates these claims before granting a soldier conscientious objector status.
3. The Army determines that Abdo qualifies as a conscientious objector.
4. The Army begins to initiate administrative procedures to discharge Abdo because of his conscientious objector status.
5. In a separate investigation, Abdo is implicated on child pornography charges (not much information on any details).
6. This jeopardizes Abdo's status as a conscientious objector, so this puts a temporary halt to his discharging process until the Army can investigate it further.
7. Abdo goes AWOL. (Now he's in real trouble.)
8. Abdo resurfaces again in Killeen, TX, outside of Ft. Hood, where he is turned in by a local gun shop owner for suspicious behavior.

Wow a Muslim conscientious objector porn freak. That's pretty unusual. Maybe "risk based" is pretty applicable to this case.

I don't think that it's a commonly held belief on FT. The "internal bombs" weren't necessarily surgically implanted, but inserted into an already existing body cavity, such as mouth, vagina, or digestive track with easy access. Don't need to have it surgically removed at that point.

We already saw with the Saudi butt bomber that his body absorbed much of the explosion. It would make a lot more sense for a terrorist to be able to get the explosive out of his/her body in order to maximize impact.

We know the SPOTniks wouldn't have been able to pick him up. TSA probably would have waved him on thru.

Glad a gun shop worker has more sense.

I'm looking for the reference that states that Abdo would have qualified for risk based screening with charges pending against him. And I'm looking for the reference that states that Abdo had any intentions of boarding an airplane or to shoot it up.

Why do you not want others members to know that you are on line, Bart?

TSA makes the claim about SPOT being effective by citing how many fake ID's, drug dealers, and other criminals they've been able to pick up with this. And even then, they're so few and far between that SPOT is largely a harassment exercise. Yet any time a major criminal makes it thru, they're missed. Kinda destroys the whole premise of SPOT finding people trying to do bad stuff on planes when all they find are small time criminals. On one hand, TSA claims success anytime a petty criminal is found while when someone big gets thru, claims SPOT was never meant to do it.

We don't know how he got to TX. Could have driven. Could have flown. I don't remember reading anything specific on that. However, we know that SPOT is a method of risk based screening, where the SPOTnik guesses perceives something that makes him/her think that the pax is a threat, or higher risk, that warrants at least a secondary. It's used to sort higher risk pax from lower risk pax.

There are a lot of ways to mitigate risk. No one can really predict what one person is going to do, especially based on the past. Many previously good guys turned bad later on, and there are bad guys that change their ways but are haunted by their past mistakes for the rest of their lives.

That's why the whole background check and TT program is junk. We see that it doesn't work well within TSA's ranks where they have some measure of control. And if they find something they don't like, or possibly even if they just don't like you, you can end up in the "bad" list and never be told why, nor can you ever really get off. It'll be a total failure when expanded to the general population. It will just be a matter of time until a TT blows something up, and then the plan goes down the toilet.

All TSA is planning to do with the risk system is separate people into "good" and "bad." And of course, if you don't submit, you're automatically "bad" even if you really are good.

Bottom line to mitigate the risk is too look at terrorism for what it really is: a threat, but a very small threat. Then analyze the vectors and determine the likelihood of it happening and the amount of damage it can REALISTICALLY cause. Then plan and mitigate from there. THAT is how you do risk based screening. Unless TSA thinks they can be mind readers and know what every person is thinking.

Let's just say, for laughs and giggles, that Abdo boarded a plane and flew from Kentucky to Texas (not likely since AWOL troops tend to avoid airports, but let's go with it anyway). He didn't exhibit anything that indicated he intended to take down a plane, and he was screened for prohibited items at the checkpoint. The plane wasn't blown up or hijacked. Apparently that wasn't his intent. He had a much simpler plan that didn't involve commercial aviation. I don't see how a BDO should have prevented this. And, once again, he didn't take any weapons with him through the checkpoint.

Wow, Super, only you can put me in the position of actually defending BDO voodoo. :D

In that scenario, I'm not sure why it would matter if a BDO kept him off the plane. Just to clarify, I really posted the link because someone said the number of active duty personnel that were terrorism suspects equaled one. I suggested that that number was those caught. Here is another one. There was a mole in the Special Forces. And I think it is optimistic to think we've found all the sleepers on the military. The ironic fact is that the unwarranted invasion of Iraq put pressure on the Pentagon to recruit more. That's not a situation where the recruiter gets more choosy. One more example of how a military adventure could have decreased national security.

Double Agent in Special Forces

Bart, this is an interesting discussion. Perhaps you can enlighten us with the risk-based screening criteria and how that would have applied.

Or is the criteria SSI? If so, how do we know it is reasonable, or an abomination? I certainly don't trust TSA to define risk so it can be measured objectively, much less measure it that way.

My worry is that the criteria will be a compendium of biases and fears, and a tool used for pernicious purposes.

Please set my concerns to rest.

I actually agree with that statement. That it's not the intent.

However, TSA also props up finding the petty criminals thru SPOT as a major success, even though those people also have no weapons on them or any intent to do any harm to a flight. So if finding those people in those instances is considered a success, why isn't it considered a failure when they get thru?

My point is that TSA is trying to have it both ways. Claim success when they find someone that isn't a threat to aviation but claim the program isn't designed to do that when it's missed.

If they want to claim it's not designed to do that ... that's fine. Just don't claim a success when a petty criminal that's not a threat to aviation is found.

If you recall a thread many years ago, we both agreed that using drug busts as successes only hurts the BDO program.