Wow. Paragraphs please. Makes it heard to read.

As others have stated, what changed in August 2006 that made it mandatory? If it's such a threat, why wasn't it mandatory after Reid?

With TSA's record on bomb detection in red team tests, I find it hard to believe that it'd be difficult to sneak a shoe bomb onto a plane if a terrorist really wanted to. If one really wanted to sneak one thru, it'd only take one of those trusted McDonalds workers to put one in their shoes and/or give shoes to someone who's going on a flight.

It only means nothing to those that stick their heads in the sand.

If you think the US is the only terror target in the world, and that Al Qaida is the only terrorist organization in the world that has an axe to grind, that is an exceedingly ignorant view.

If shoes are a the great bomb vector as TSA maintains, then it's not just a threat to the US but a threat to aviation in general. The world sees the shoe threat for what it really is: a remotely (we're talking like BFE Alaska remote) possible vector that the risk isn't worth the resources spent on it.

And with GAO red team tests that show you guys are adept at finding water but miserable at finding bombs, I'm not convinced you guys would recognize a shoebomb even if you saw one. You have way too many things to look for to really focus on any one thing.

No this is a starter, and it shows an incredibly myopic and ignorant view of the world.

First of all, Israel seems to be the number one target in the world and has been for sometime. You can't even go a week without some terrorist incident happening there. The South Koreans have a very real fear of war and terrorism from the North Koreans. Pakistan and India hate each other. China has domestic terrorists. Spain, of all countries, even had an AQ attack on its metro in Madrid. Just because we don't hear about ever incident that happens around the world on the news in the US doesn't mean stuff isn't happening around the world.

Al Qaida has struck more abroad than in the US. Terrorism is a very isolated incident in the US. It happens much more regularly abroad. If we were number 1, more would be happening here. I'm much much more likely to die on the way to the mall today than I am dying from terrorism on my plane trip next week. AQ could target many more soft targets like malls, the TSA line, or any large gathering of people and do just as much if not more damage to the US. What do you think the impact of a bomb would be on a march in DC?

TSA's problem is that it has no focus. With all the BS you guys have to look for, can you honestly tell me that TSA is focused? Scatterbrained and obsessed maybe, but certainly not focused. If you guys were focused, you'd be doing what you do very well. TSA doesn't. And it doesn't help that management is ever expanding your scope. That takes away from any focus that may exist.

I agree. And you (collective you) should remember that THEY are the front line on terror. TSA is a last ditch effort to get anything that THEY may have missed due to the imperfect collection of intel.

Intel may be quite good, it may not be. And then you have it by analysts that may have preconceived notions and biases that may analyze it wrong. It's a good system overall, but it leaves a lot to be desired. I hate to do a TSA here, but trust me on this one. I know there are many here with first hand info as well that would agree on this.

HQ keeps slipping the date. We should have been 100% a long time ago. It's easy to be on track when the goal posts keep moving.

No disagreement there.

It's doable if you allocate the resources to it. However, this is where TSA's mismanagement of resources come in.

If you guys are doing your job correctly, you don't need gate screenings.

TSA didn't need brand new uniforms and tin badges, and even then, they screwed up that purchase by buying bad fabrics that caused rashes.

TSA doesn't need to spend money on strip searches when the benefit is questionable and the privacy and 4th amendment implications exceed any possible benefit.

TSA shouldn't have wasted so much money on bad puffers, but should have had the contractor design them correctly (i.e. in a real world environment) so they worked right, or went with a different vendor that didn't have these issues. I've seen those puffers working in other nations. They do exist.

Just a few examples. I can't believe with all the money we throw at TSA that this is something that's too hard and can't afford.

Security clearances may be a way of life for the government, but they're also a lot more stringent with who gets them, and periodically re-evaluate things. Additionally, we have to report anything that may be seen as a compromise to our integrity and ability to safeguard classified information. The penalty for not doing such is great. Security is very involved and very active. I don't see that with TSA.

Unfortunately, management would need to be wiped out at TSA for any of this to happen.

Let me be on the record that I don't think you're a bad guy. I despise the agency you work for, the "security" it provides (I use that loosely), its cost, and the utter disregard for the law and constitution it has. You've been around PV and here long enough to know the points I'm talking about. Gotta be careful with group think though with in federal agencies. It's bad everywhere, but it's particularly bad with in DHS and TSA. It's beneficial to be skeptical of what the agency says. That's what I'm saying with the koolaid.

Again, you are repeating yourself and it is wrong.

The statement is not offensive or ignorant, it merely takes into the thought process the fact that many countries out there hate the US for many reasons, several of the same countries hate Great Britain for similiar reasons (as well as the continued ally status they have). Other countries have had to live with more terrorism than (hopefully) we will ever experience, therefore their perception of terror is a different one from ours. They have more experience, more intelligence, and better feel for most of the terror tactics than we do, because they have been at the sharper end of the stick longer. They take different stances on things based on their experiences and self generated threat levels, that being said, it is for their country, not ours. We have not had the same level of experience with terror as some of the other countries, therefore our perception is much different. Other countries have had a longer time to deal with terror in general and it translates to a different way of looking at things. Our threat levels here are based on the intelligence, general perception of the government at the HQ level and policy execs that study trends and patterns and all that good spook stuff some of us never get to work on. You can sling insults all you want, as long as you follow the rules through the checkpoint, you can even call me Dirk Smurf or Bubba Smurf or even Smurfette if you like. Nothing is useless about the process, it keeps many deadly items off of airplanes every day, regardless of what you think, say or opine.

I have nothing on what caused the threat to be migrated up to the level it is (other than the previously mentioned awareness factor), I just don't know what changed or why.

Maybe I should be more clear on the threat viewpoint, I think that our security takes into account other countries threat vectors and intelligence, but we are US-centric in our assesments. Of course Israel is it's own little seething cauldron of directed hatred from within and without. They (if I am not mistaken) have the highest terror attack ratio in the know world. They also have a different perception and reaction to terror because they have lived with it (most of the younger ones especially) all their lives. It is just another thought in the back of their minds and part of the process of their everday lives.

They are also a much more aware society than the US, they did a test a few years ago where they would leave a bag unattended in major metro areas of seveeral countries to determine the type and time of response. Israel had the shortest response time (to the point that a lot of the testers didn't even get more than 25 feet from the bag before someone spoke to them about it), and the most organized responses (probably due to the fact that they live with it all the time). Out of all western countries, the US was dead last, with a standard response time of over 20 minutes. It is about how we think of terror, not that we are the most hated in the world, I really wrote that bad and should have clarified it better.

I also know that there are many hits worldwwide and I didn't mean to seem like I had not taken them into account. It is simply that the US has a much more offended response in general than some countries that are more involved with terror attacks. When we were hit, we went somewhere and did something, we created a new government agency specifically to combat threats to the homeland, we amped up our responses in everything. Several will say that it is a kneejerk reaction to a relatively minor event (in the overall scheme of things), I say it was typically American response to a threat.

Our entire military doctrine has been oriented in two ways for quite some time now - Overwheming force and surgical strike capability (with the most focus being on overwhelming force aspect and not taking into account the winning hearts and minds aspect which should be diplomatic). When threatened we tend to crush mercilessly and then scale back, that is the type of response the country had to 9/11. We massed, went and attacked, changed the entire system of how e do airport security, and also added in the rest of transprtation in the bargain with a never again type of attitude.

I do not endorse all that has been done, but some of it is good, there should be more focus on security here, especially with as easy at it is to enter this country. I was not dissing the rest of the world, merely trying to give my opinion on what type of response and thought process we had on terror and how it is different than the rest of the world.

For the record, I woould probably go drink a beer with you if I knew you in real life so, you are not a bad sort. I also agree that groupthink is a huge pitfall for the government, but it is also in the public sector as well. (and I still haven't had Koolaid since they took away my Mountainberry Punch... can you tell I am still offended by that?)

I question the validity of this "test". How did they ever make it to the 20 minute mark? In a major US metro area, an unattended bag will almost certainly not remain in place 5 to 10 minutes before it is stolen.

Hehe, I wish I could find the link to it (I remember this from before I worked with TSA), it was actually pretty cool. They did have some bags swiped, but most of them were simply ignored. My favorite was the one they left in a mall, in the middle of the busiest walkway, and it sat for around 40 minutes before anyone did anything, and then it was simply picked up and moved out of the way by a housekeeping member.