If they spit in plain sight, they may be questioned. If they swallow, they'd be ok perhaps. But that's presuming they pretended that the blood or sperm was baby formula and/or milk or otherwise medically prescribed.

Well, maybe the TSA hasn't thought of that, but it was one of the first things that occurred to me: put it in a diaper

Or better yet, a pair of Depends.

If people take the time to understand the implications of this, it could very well be the best gift the terrorists could have given us.

What it shows is that there is no way to prevent terrorism by banning items from a plane. I can not imagine a world in which baby formula is banned from planes, so at the end of it all, we have to realize that the liquid ban is pointless. You can only stop terrorism by stopping people, you can't stop things.

You can only stop terrorism by stopping people from becoming (or wanting to be) terrorists. Of course the idea of putting a full stop to terrorism is more science fiction than reality -- especially as terrorism has been around for millenia. It doesn't help counterterrorism that state and societal responses in the name of safety & security, in the face of dangers, often yield counterproductive results.

That was exactly my point. They implemented this ban with clear knowledge that one of the suspects in the case would be exempted from the ban by being allowed to carry a liquid on board.

Even the tasting of the item is not enough to necessarily prove it is safe. Further, on the ban the UK is allowing "butt cream" as another poster called it. I would further assume that a small amount of the "cream" if it is an explosive component would not be enough to cause real pain or show an imediate reaction to the skin. Thus, the ban on liquids fails to meet the known goal. Hence the ban cannot logically remain in place.

The problem with this "ban" is that there are exceptions. The exceptions to any ban provide a way for those to who intend to harm us to still achieve their goals. The only folks who play fair by the bans are those who intend to do no harm. Thiose who intend to do harm don't play by the "rules" and will use any thing we give them against us.

So in the end. The ban on all liquids, if it were to actually be in response to the threat, would be a blanket ban with no exceptions. Same thing for a carry-on ban. The bans would have to be absolute in order to be effective.

So in the no carry-on ban, you cannot bring anything with you. That includes papers, wallets, and medicine. In reality a liquid ban needs to be absolute as well. By that I mean no exceptions. This includes even liquids on board the aircraft. Unfortunately, I think the next attempt at this type of plot is to place the components in a powdered form inside medicine capsules and have a prescription for the items. Keep a couple real versions of the medicine in the bottle if they are asked to sample them. Once onboard the aircraft use the airline provided liquids to assemble to device and sneak aboad a couple of strike anywhere matches and presto.

Anything less than the above leaves too many holes that can be used. However, implementing such a ban in absolutely unreasonable. In essence you have banned not only all items from the cabin, but also all passengers who need any type of medication, babies, and most long haul flights. One could probably survive up to a 4 hour flight without water of any source, but after that it gets tough. (no not going to die tough, but dehiydration and other illnesses may start to appear)

Right now I would love to sit down with Kip Hawley and Co, and explain to them where the problems lie. Then I would like to some how put out some sort of press conference showing the problems with the very things they have implemented.

Yes, you're right. Here are three examples of holes in the current "ban on liquids" that makes the ban unlikely to be effective for very long:

Vulnerability #1: A mother is permitted to bring liquids on the plane for her child. She may be required to sip the liquid, but keep in mind that supposedly the London plotters in case were already planning to use a subterfugue that defeats the "sip it yourself to prove it is harmless" thing. They supposedly were going to dye their chemical red so that it looked like a popular red sports drink; rig a false bottom in the sports drink container; put their chemical in the bottom, below the false bottom; seal the false bottom in place; then place actual harmless sports drink in top. This ensured that if they were asked to sip from the bottle, they could do so and they would be sipping sports drink, not toxic chemicals. So one way to smuggle liquids onto a plane would be for a mother to bring it on for her child, concealed in the same way the London terrorists were planning to use.

Vulnerability #2: The US is allowing people to bring medications on board, even if they are in liquid form, so long as they prove they have a valid prescription. This inconveniences honest passengers, but opens up a hole that terrorists could exploit. A terrorist could easily obtain a legitimate prescription, then replace the medicine with some other chemical of his choice and board the plane with prohibited chemicals.

Vulnerability #3: I doubt very much that the metal detectors can detect if you are carrying liquid on your person. Thus, a team of terrorists could carry their chemical liquids on their person through the metal detector and onto the plane. Moreover, terrorists would be free to take several trips through the metal detector to increase the volume of liquids that they smuggle through. For instance, Terrorist Tim might smuggle 0.5 liter of liquid on his person through the security checkpoint, and hand it off to Terrorist Tina inside the sterile area; then Tim could exit security, go pick up another 0.5 liter of liquid from his car, and go through security again. Repeat this a few times, and you can increase the amount of stuff you can smuggle through security. It might even be possible to do this in advance and hide or store your terrorist supplies somewhere in the sterile area for pickup a day later.

If I can think of this, so can the terrorists. That says to me that the current prohibitions in place in the US are unlikely to be very effective for long. Their primary effect will be to inconvenience passengers; but a dedicated and intelligent will be able to easily circumvent those security measures.

Personally, I hope that the current policy isn't made permanent. As a long-term policy, I don't think it makes a good tradeoff between inconveniece and insecurity: the costs are significant, and in the long run the benefits are pretty slim.

Heck, it doesn't even have to be a legitimate prescription. As a poster was fond of point out in my thread on confiscating a solid deodorant stone, terrorists could quite easily use a printer to create a label and a fake prescription pad sheet--it's not like the TSA is going to be able to call them in to verify their legitimacy.

Yet another reason this is such a sham, such an illusion of safety, that it is nothing more than a fuzzy security blanket for all the ostriches to cower beneath.