... and that plan is what OBL & Co. are hoping for. Wrong lesson and flawed thinking or not, they are hoping to "bleed us" economically -- especially a la the Soviets -- by incentivizing an imperial overstretch.

Forget El Al, the security at Indian airports is better.
As soon as you enter the terminal your checked luggage is X-rayed and sealed by security tape. Then you proceed to your airline counter. Your bags are weighed and checked.
Some airlines and most flights to US have bags X-rayed a second time. Not a problem as the gate attendant takes your bag to an X-ray machine which they have right next to do counter.
I know this sounds extreme but I checked in 10 bags (70 pounds each) and there was no problem.

They have been X-raying checked bags for more than fifteen years and they can identify stuff very well.
-------------
For Carry one..bags are X-rayed and then manually checked if something seems fishy. Pretty similar to here.
---------------
Personal checks- NO SHOE CARNIVAL.
Pass through the checkpoint if no alarm sounds your golden. Women needing secondary have a small booth with curtains so no one can see them being checked.
--------------------

Recently I flew Air India from ORD. Just before boarding the plane, Air India employees were checking carryon luggage and travel documents. Guess they dont trust TSA.
---------------

If this is done by Indian airports and Air India, you can imagine El. TSA is still learning and will take years till they get they act together. Only problem is they learning curve needs to be faster.

Don't get me started about security at Indian airports. (Just kidding.)

Circumventing it is -- sadly -- truly a joke.

It's the incompetence and lack of sophistication of terrorists there that has so far spared them from more terrorist attacks aimed at the aviation industry.

That said, US aviation security had much to learn from even Indian airport/aviation security .... and it still can learn a bit.

The question is- Do you want to FIX the problems, or continue to dance around the edges and point fingers when something happens? I know the cost would be unreasonable, that doesn't mean I can't hope it would happen.

What's the point of wanting something wasteful (i.e., "unreasonable cost") and (perhaps) counterproductive?

I know OBL & Co. -- and other of America's enemies -- would love for us to walk down wasteful and counterproductive paths. I certainly would not suggest playing into their hands and playing a game using their "rules". Would you and why?

Are you suggesting we outsource indian airport security on top of call centers?

The pre-9/11 airport security was outsourced ... including to foreign(-owned) firms.

Not clear if you're saying that makes it ok, not ok, or you're not saying?

I am not making a blanket judgment about the efficacy of "outsourcing", including outsourcing of airport security. It can be interpreted all ways and be correct in whole or part. "Dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge".

Which problems are you hoping to fix with a program that would decimiate civil liberties and our way of live, and that you agree we can't afford?

We lose over 40,000 people to car accidents and 18,000 people to murders each year. If you want to save lives, that's where it's at - not bus bombings.

If we are really concerned about terrorism, however, we should start doing something about nuclear terrorism. That's something that has the potential to kill hundreds of thousands and injure millions, plus cause $1 trillion + in damage. The Soviets built about 120 portable nuclear bombs (the "suitcase type) - they've accounted for ~40. There are 80+ more that could be anywhere right now. There's also enough loose nuclear material floating around to make 250,000 nuclear bombs. But we're doing almost nothing about it. This is the real kind of terrorism that we need to be worried about - not bankrupting the country to make people take their shoes off before they get on a bus or subway, for little or no increase in security.

You hit the nails on the head. ^^

I am amazed that people think it wise to focus on smaller threats that are difficult to eliminate while essentially downplaying/ignoring far bigger threats that are easier to address -- especially given the cost-benefit dynamics. To do what we are doing with Security is proof that Fool reigns. Security Fools.

suicide bombers, as scary as they are, are nothing compared to N/B/C warfare. A single nuclear device could wipe out New York or washington. Losing 3000 people is a very unfortunate thing but it is lost in the noise of the people who die every day from car accidents and every day violence. It is just more threatening when it happens with a bang.

This is the core of the argument that ultimately gives us inanities like the TSA. This is the "tragedy of the commons" in a giant scale. Because your life is worth a lot to you you demand safeguards that end up being welfare-destroying. Your life (and mine) isn't really worth much (nobody's is, even if GWB were to die while in office, the world would keep on turning). Everybody, in the grand scale, is expendable, and as long as this separation between private worth and public worth of the value of a human life continues, we'll end up spending more money than we should in things like the TSA and keeping Schiavos alive.

I'm not expecting a change in this behavior, ever. It is genetically wired, and there's little we can do about that. Just like men staring at breasts.

Seriously, that was a very good, and accurate, post.

One other thing that is being protected is the economy. Perhaps that's bigger than human lives. It's sad the Civil Liberties and dignity aren't put as high.

It's called "fighting the last war."