WCBS reported this morning that the TSA at one of the New York area airports allowed an Egyptian man whose shoes tested positive for explosives 5 times to board a plane.

There is now apparently a nationwide manhunt on for this person.

I heard the report only once and at this time cannot find reference to it on the station's website.

Did anyone else hear or read about this?

Drudge supplied a link http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigat...C-RSSFeeds0312 to an ABC News story about this @$$hole. According to ABC, "airport security" detained him but then released him: "after holding him overnight, airport security in New York released him. The FBI was notified after he was released. Now the FBI has put out a nationwide alert." ... is "airport security" doing detaining someone? Does this phrase refer to PAPD? Why wasn't the FBI notified? How ironic, that just days after the pious 9/11 Commission in exile gives our country failing grades for preparedness, authorities fail to communicate such an ominous finding. Moreover, the ABC story hinted that this knowledge about the shoe explosive may have influenced the FAMs in Miami who shot a naturalized American with bipolar disorder.

Thank, PH, for the link. I guess I missed it.

Just wait until many more of us start being "detained" when puffer machines become the norm...

I assume that TSA didn't use the same swab five times over. I hope. The alarm itself doesn't concern me, since there are some fertilizers that give false positives. I'm very surprised they went ahead and mentioned the TATP, given that the TSA doesn't even like to release the name of their arrested bretheren (DTW).

The words "airport security" are kind of broad. I would hope that it was PAPD who detained him, becuase as we all know, the TSA doesn't have detaining powers.

But then again, I'm sure the TSA put the shoes through the x-ray after the fifth positive test, right?

The alarm was resolved, right? If there was no bomb found, what's the basis of "detaining" this guy? If he truly had a bomb, why wasn't this guy referred to the LEO and arrested right there? I don't get the simple "detaining" line.

Something isn't right here, and I get the feeling there are some spin doctors working overtime right now to find out how to cover their collective asses.

I heard this yesterday, but it seems to be fluff. A person "fitting the criteria" of what was announced yesterday -- and muddies the water, intentionally or not -- was found this morning in Iowa and nothing substantive there.

If this is the case, then the question begs....why was this guy detained?

DHS should know. Whether they do or not know or care is another matter -- especially if the detained doesn't care to raise the matter or there is confusion on the part of the FBI with misidentifying the person in IA this morning.

The machines test for traces of explosives, not explosives - after the first alarm on his shoes, the shoes would have gone through the X-Ray and been subject to a physical inspection

I'm not sure why they would have bothered to test the shoes more than twice, anyway... Well, fifth time's the charm!

Right, and I'm still curious why he was deemed a threat if they both sent his shoes through the x-ray and physically inspected them but found nothing. At that point, one would think that the screeners would say, "Maybe he walked near some explosives at some point," and perhaps ask a LEO to speak to him.

Maybe that's what happened, but the TSA refuses to tell us (SSI, I guess ). Maybe it was the LEO who made the decision to detain this guy, for good or for ill, but I'm not sure we'll ever see the whole, true picture here.