nrgiii

Let's suppose for a minute that you have Pissy's job and the FBI says they have credible intelligence that a cell of domestic underwear bombers is going to strike multiple flights on the same day sometime in 2011.

Let's further suppose that the courts have declared the NoS and the enhanced gropes to be unconstitutional violations of the 4th amendment, so TSA's current strategy for detection of underwear bombs is off the table.

Question: how do YOU protect the public against this threat given that it's pretty clear the WTMD and HHMD will not detect the underwear bombs?

I've read several editorials this week which basically say: "Yes the NoS and gropes go too far, but we're stuck with it because no one has a better idea." Are they right? I believe the fight against the NoS cannot be won unless a viable alternative is presented.

wildcatlh

Hasn't this been discussed thousands of times here already?

WTMD + X-Ray of bags + ETD. All you need.

tev9999

Is the alternative to highway deaths to set the national speed limit at 10 MPH? Not everything needs an alternative, you just live with small risks.

If we have enough intelligence to know there are terrorist cells around, we should be able to find them before they get to the airport.

In reality I would expect the TSA to declare underwear must be worn on the outside of your pants, and you must pass through the WTMD backwards after answering who won the 1938 World Series.

OldGoat

We pay the TSA billions each year just do they can figure out and implement a solution that fits with our laws and values. If they are not able to do that, we are wasting our money, and we should clean house. Napolitano, Pistole, fire the lot. For the billions we spend, we deserve better.

Ellie M

I would start by not crying wolf. If there really was credible intelligence and a need to do these invasive procedures, how many frequent travelers would believe TSA at this point? If you want people to react to credible terror threats you don't leave the terror threat at orange and subject them to asinine and humiliating searches without a credible threat for years.

Boggie Dog

ETD and the old Puffers detect explosive components.

WBI does not, WTMD does not. Pat downs may not if the device is well hidden.

michelle227

my basic response is that TSA screening of pax has done nothing to make domestic flights originating in the United States any safer than existed on 9/10/2001.

The threats have come from flights originating abroad and that were headed TO (not from) the United States.

What now exists is an agency run amuck that was created in the cloud of fear and that must continue to expand its trampling of civil liberties in an attempt to remain viable even though they have failed to find their domestic trophy.

A far better solution would be for the agency to act upon intelligence that exists (you know, like when the visa in the underwear case could have been revoked but wasn't because the intelligence peeps did not want to alert the terrorists that we knew about them). Failure to act on intelligence should NEVER be used as a basis to punish the very significant majority of passengers who do not pose a threat.

mightykong

1. Bring over Israeli consultants to help set up and implement their security model here.
2. Replace most of the TSOs who have no business being TSOs with former military/LEOs and give them decent pay and benefits

nrgiii

OK, so you are saying you would ETD every passenger and all their carry-ons, right?

Some follow-up questions:

1) Has it been determined that ETD would have nailed the underwear bomber (seem probably, but I honestly don't know).

2) I think ETD would slow down the screening substantially. That would be acceptable?

nrg

Interesting, but doesn't answer my question about the scenario given. And it's naive to think that all terror attacks on airplanes will continue to come from abroad. Remember Timothy McVeigh? Remember the anthrax letters? Remember the Uni-bomber?

DoingHomework

Interesting question. In my opinion a technology-based solution will never be effective. Every technology or system of layered technologies must always have gaps, for human safety of nothing else. These gaps will always be relatively easy to figure out from open-source data. This applies not just to aviation security but to a wide range of information that is kept "secret."

Law enforce is particularly bad at addressing terrorism. They like to pretend like they are preparing but almost every preparation is about response after the event.

Human intelligence could be effective in the situation you mentioned - domestic. I'd certainly work the intelligence side to try to narrow down information on the expected operation.

But fundamentally I think the most effective approach would be to develop an army of observers - business travelers especially - who report any strange behavior. Let's face it, it's not too hard to sit on a plane and "profile" 90% of the passengers around you.

I'm not saying it would be easy for an individual to accurately pick out the bad guys every time but if 3 or 4 observers identify the same suspicious person on the flight or in the gate area, it would seem like that could be enough to justify questioning by actual security people.

nrgiii

[Devil's advocate]
On #1: The Israeli model uses racial/nationality/ethnic/etc profiling, which others on this board have stated is illegal here. Wouldn't that make this idea a non-starter?
[/Devil's advocate]

On #2, that would be a great improvement but I don't see how that alone would stop an UW bomber.

nrg

michelle227

COMPETENT profiling takes into account the totality of the equation, not just the color of the skin. Profiling got a bad rap in the United States because of the numerous instances of problems where people were being stopped for the offense of DWB.

Of course, competent profiling also requires using the intelligence that has been gathered and we have seen more than one occasion where the US government had competing factions that wanted another NOT to act on known intelligence because it might harm a broader investigation. And if you cannot act on what you ALREADY know, then the concept of profiling also fails miserably.

nrgiii

I agree with most of that, but I would argue that by the time the UW bomber is on the plane, it's too late. Even if he's detected on the ground before take off, he will just detonate his bomb and take out as many as possible since this guy is martyring himself anyway.

What about having bomb-sniffing dogs taking a quick pass over everyone at the check point? Seems like the dogs would be more accurate and take less time than the puffer or ETD.

nrg

I agree, but wouldn't COMPETENT profiling still be illegal in the US?

TamCaP

Someone already gave example of APHIS / customs dogs. It's been working for quite some time for them and know-how is there.

And you don't need to screen everyone with a dog. Just walk them along the lines at a steadily pace, those buggers love this kind of a thing when they have to find "the thing" to get a treat! If dog alerts, then call over a LEO (or better make TSA into a professional LEO agency) and check the pax from 10 different angles. You can then use WBI, etc. Reasonable suspicion first, molesting later.

Plus, like a mantra: use common sense. Use common sense. Use common sense.

bocastephen

The answer is actually very simple. Since neither the WTMD, nor the radiation box can detect well-hidden explosives, the easy answer is to use something that does detect explosives no matter where they're hidden - a dog.

Instead of wasting billions of dollars on this ridiculous charade, having a couple bomb sniffing dogs give each passenger a lookover as they clear the ID checkstand would not only cost a minuscule fraction of what we're spending on these machines, but offer effectiveness gains of a massive magnitude.

And no - I don't object to a dog giving me a walk-by sniff. Actually, the more time I spend with a bomb-sniffing dog at the checkpoint and the less time I spend with human TSA employees, the happier I would be.