Terrorists who have been active in the West involve people from just about every major part of the world. Al Qaeda has also shown that it can adapt, such as using people who don't fit the typical "middle easterner" profile in attacks.

We could just try to prevent yesterday's attack and be doomed to fail, I suppose. Or we could think about what attacks and attackers might look like in the future.

The terrorists al-Qaeda is recruiting to replace the typical "middle easterner" profile share some common characteristics. They tend to frequent radical mosques, which means they subscribe to the virulent brand of Islam. They are not here in the United States, at least according to available news reports. Given these characteristics, it should be possible to narrow down persons of interest for additional attention, i.e. those who have been overseas. Other governments can cooperate and keep tabs on those who frequent radical mosques and listen to so-called clerics. Even here in the United States, entering a mosque does not carry a privacy interest. Law enforcement and intelligence can observe a mosque, church, or synogogue to note who enters. These are non-intrusive first steps to develop some idea of people who should receive extra attention at airport checkpoints. We all realize that there are only so many resources to spend on aviation security. Those finite resources should be expended in such a manner as to maximize their effectiveness. Everyone should receive some baseline level of security - WTMD, X-ray of bags, ideally puffers and scanners - but pay more attention to those who are more likely to be terrorists. Seems like mere common sense.

Not according to what I've been hearing as of late -- or even before 9/11. Avoiding mosques (period) -- especially the handful of infamous ones -- has been the way of Al-Qaeda when it comes to its general approach for more or less direct recruitment. And it's not like the latest Al-Qaeda recruits are even necessarily religious fundamentalists -- a lot of them are anything but. (Remember your disbelief that various white supremacists were looking to hook up with Al-Qaeda and the type? It's still going on. ;) )

A lot of governments are wasting a lot of resources at mosques. That's not where the problems start, can be trailed (generally) or even be resolved. It leads to a lot of false leads, entrapment situations that are nothing but a paid informant trying to keep themselves on the payroll doing no real work, and bigger haystacks in which to lose the same handful of needles.

And you think the TSA is going to know who subscribes to what religion how?

So when we leave the country do we get our hands stamped or dipped in permanent ink to let the TSA forever know that we've been tainted by being outside the country?

This is done a lot more in places like Britain, but hasn't been done so much in the US since stuff like COINTELPRO and other such abuses. Probably we'll see more of it from the FBI in the future, however.

How do you suggest that the TSA find out about people who have been abroad or go to mosques, etc.?

IIRC, in addition to SSSS selectee screening, one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was better communication between government agencies. Does ICE keep records of who exits and enters the country? Jamie Gorelick notwithstanding, this is the type of information that can and should be available on government databases. Add in CIA and/or FBI data on those who frequent radical mosques, and TSA should be able to cross reference ticket purchases by persons of interest. I know, there are privacy concerns, but let's face facts. The government is trying to put together CAPPS II in a useful version. I am merely suggesting ways to make the data mining more efficient and less intrusive to Americans who are flying within the country. To me, such use of databases is less intrusive than TSA stopping me, frisking me, and pawing through my bags.

What are your sources for your belief about al-Qaeda recruits. The subway bombers in London attended a notorious mosque. I still am not so sure that just because one goofball white supremacist leader of a group with "Aryan" in its title made overtures to Arab terrorists equates to the prison group "Aryan Brotherhood embracing Arabs. Given what prosecutors have said and pleadings filed about the Aryan Brotherhood, I cannot see them having anything to do with Arabs or Moslems.

Communication is great, but I haven't seen any good ideas about how that information is going to get from "the government" down to the TSA screeners on the line. The present "no fly" list can be bypassed by anyone in about two minutes.

Or perhaps such a system would result in you getting hassled even more by the TSA. I travel abroad; you said that's a flag. Terrorists plotting an attack would probably fly regularly to observe security measures. I fly regularly. In the past they use large planes from major cities. I fly to those major cities. They might buy books or borrow books from the library about terrorism because those books discuss vulnerabilities. I do that too. Terrorists might search Google for useful information, or go to a place like this forum. I do both of those, as well. Terrorists make international calls. So do I.

SecureFlight, as announced by the TSA, was expected to "red flag" 1-2% of travelers each day based on this kind of datamining. That equals 20,000 - 40,000 people each day banned from flying. Seems like only a matter of time before I get put on the blacklist.

1. I'll worry about "my sources". If you can prove me wrong on any factual item I've brought up here or on OMNI and not attributed to a source on matters related to counterterrorism, then try me. ;)
2. Contrary to public myth, the majority of the London bombers attended no notorious mosques and were rarely to be found at any mosques whatsoever. (Al-Qaeda recruits, including as of late, are told to minimize/avoid attending mosques, notorious or otherwise.)
3. White supremacists seeking out arab or muslim extremist outfits -- or being sought out -- is not limited to just "one goofball" and it does include members of the Aryan Brotherhood whether in prison or outside of it.

Did everybody but me miss this gem buried near the bottom of the article?::td: I shudder at the thought of what this disgrace of an agency is going to foist upon us next.

With regard to fake IDs, who cares that they found some? They found NOBODY who was a threat to airplane safety. The ID check only really serves to enforce the airline non-transferability of ticket rules. If the person sitting next to me is unarmed then it really doesn't matter what his background is, now does it? El Al let Richard Reid fly. That says a bundle to me.

Mission creep and the TSA go hand in hand. :(

FWIW or not worth, I was in China today and Kofi Annan spoke out against racist profiling*.

------
* He still calls it "racial profiling". But the undiplomatic truth is that it's racist profiling. Maybe he'll come around sooner than later.

Of course, that's easy to say in a country where the vast majority of the population is homogenous and other races would be a very small minority. :)

Yes, he was talking in global terms. :D

But is China less homogenous than many parts of the US or Europe? (I don't know but I do know that in Western and SW China a sizeable minority or even majority of people in certain areas there are culturually different than what is to be found in the major metro Chinese areas in the Eastern part of the country.)

I've always thought of most of Europe to be pretty homogenous as well. The US is pretty heterogenous ... much more so than most countries of the world.

China's numbers may be a bit different ... even supposing that the minority totaled 10% (I don't know that), that's still WAY over 100 million people. So that minority would make up much more than a majority in a country like Germany. :D

I guess my point is that I think racism would be much more prevalent and accepted in a country where the population is largely homogenous.

Then are you saying that China would be one to adopt racist profiling at airports? :D (Thankfully the Chinese don't even have the laptops-out nonsense at the major international gateways let alone this.)

I am often of the school of thought that places that are overwhelmingly ethnically homogenous are less likely to be hostile toward individuals that could be described as ethnically "different". One minority family in a nation of millions = little racist hostility; a hundred thousand such minority families in a nation of millions = increased racist hostility.

I don't think they would, but I would think they would be more likely on the whole.

Well of course the more you have the more tension you could have. :) However, what I'm saying is that when I was in Germany, I generally heard that the Turks weren't very well liked there.

I would think that when you have a more heterogeneous society like we have in the US that people would be more accepting of folks "who aren't like me." We see them every day, we work with them, we socialize with them, etc.

I do agree that a small number could see little racist hostility. It might be viewed as cool to see someone different. Of course, it might not. A lot probably depends on the generation and how relations between said groups were. IE, Older folks might be bigoted against each other due to issues before civil rights while younger people don't harbor that hostility.

I think it's a much deeper topic than we intended to go for this conversation though. :)