Flushing out terrorists
 

For those who might have missed Friday's latest addition on PV:

http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/05/what...k-like_01.html

Interesting there is no mention of how many tewwowists have been flushed since the program started...

And I hope we never do. Catching them is not the job of the TSA, deterring them is.

Co-sign

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

This is just begging for a return of Superguy's poster on this subject!

I hate to burst your bubble Ron, but if you think a group w/the resources to pull of '9/11' (TM) is ever going to be deterred by the likes of the TSA & its antics, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn you should look at...:rolleyes:

BTW-still waiting for your response to my questions asked previously-what one action, implemented by the TSA & the TSA alone, had it been in place on 9/10, would prevent another '9/11' (TM)?

Once again, Ron, you and your organisation demonstrate how pointless you are. No terrorist has ever been deterred by the TSA. A few amateur terrorist wannabees have been caught, but only due to their own towering incompetence, not because to the proficiency of the TSA or any other "anti-terror" agency.

There aren't that many terrorists out there, Ron. The few dozen that do exist have pretty much been able to hit whatever target they wanted to, with or wilthout the massive waste of taxpayer money being used in a so-far futile attempt to stop them. Tomorrow, like every day, something is going to happen to someone, somewhere (their daughter is going to be killed by an Israeli bomb in Gaza, or their mother is going to be gunned down by a US military checkpoint in Iraq, or their love interest at the Virginia Tech is going to shun them, who knows what it will be) that makes them decide to commit an act of terror. Eventually, they will find the means to do so, and some people will die, just as on that same day, thousands of others will die of old age, suicide, car accidents, lung cancer, malaria, earthquakes, tsunamis, tainted milk or peanut butter, and a 1000 other causes. And for the others that don't die, life will go on. For some that will be showing up for another day of their pointless job at a TSA checkpoint. For others, that will be losing a little more money because they have a dangerous gel or liquid confiscated at a checkpoint. Either way, it will be pretty much irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things. Stop trying to convince yourself your job is important, because it's not -- it's pretty close to totally meaningless.

You need decaf.

I think there is some validity to what you say. True, a highly-trained professional "terrorist" (read that to mean the cold-hearted men in black who work special operations) could find ways to defeat any security program. In my previous life, I conducted what is popularly referred to as Red Team attacks against high-profile targets and always found a hole.

Where your argument is somewhat flawed is the assumption that terrorists are infallible. Even highly-trained professional field operators exhibit poker-like "tells." Argue against this all you want, I'll match my field experience against anyone on this board and prove you and anyone else wrong. The tricky part is sensitizing security personnel to detect these subtle signs and incorporating that into their security screening routines. This is where the advantage falls to the bad guys because humans are creatures of habit. This doesn't make screening pointless. It only raises the point of the challenges officers need to focus on when they screen.

There are other aspects of airport security screening you conveniently overlook: the dumb passenger. No insult intended, but there are people who simply don't think. They pack acids, corrosives, flammables and other dangerous items in their checked luggage which are detected by TSOs on an all-too frequent basis. While not terrorism, these dumb acts certainly pose an equal danger to the safety of aircraft as would an IED.

As for the other incidents, such as the passenger who brings a loaded firearm to the checkpoint (happens on a regular basis) or has some other dangerous prohibited item such as a hunting knife, martial arts weapon, etc., a lot of that can be attributed to either forgetfulness, ignorance or other simple mistakes. Still, the point you overlook is that TSA catches these items on a fairly frequent basis. No, none of them to date have proven to be terrorist-related. But the point you deliberately ignore is whether there is any value added to catching these items at the checkpoint. Don't bother attempting an answer, I fully expect you to fit this into your anti-TSA mantra.

Pointless job? Hardly.

Starbucks has an excellent decaf brand that still retains a lot of flavor. You really ought to try it! ;)

Can we assume that you have data to support your conclusions and can post links to it here? Should we wait for it?

A few dozen. Hmmm, sorry but I will once again ask for some form of support for that belief. Here is what I was able to find with about 2 minutes research:

“How many Muslims support terrorism or the rule of a world Islamist' state? The estimates run from 1 percent (14-20 million) or as high as 50 percent.”
http://www.sullivan-county.com/wcva/list.htm

50% sounds a bit high to me. I’d most likely go with less than 1%. Still, how many Muslims are out there? Then of course you would need to count the IRA, ETA, The Tamil Tigers, All of the members of the white power movement, the KKK (still around after all these years), the PLO, and I could go on. Of them, only the IRA has avoided killing citizens of the USA. They have not always been successful, but they do try.

IOW there Pol, the number could easily end up being in the hundreds of thousands.

“ The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”

Tomorrow, like every day, something is going to happen to someone, somewhere, but only a few are going to be injured or killed because someone wants to make a political statement, coerce or intimidate governments or societies, because of political, religious, or ideological belief’s.

You mean this one? :D


http://home.comcast.net/~mdtraveler/TSA_revised.jpg

If there were hundreds of thousands, we'd pretty much be finding them everyday. Not necessarily at the airports, but around the world.

Just because people support terrorism or support a world Islamist state doesn't mean that those people would actually do anything to bring it about. While there are nuts out there willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause, the saying "Everyone wants to go heaven but no one wants to die to get there" would apply. While they may support the terrorists, it doesn't mean that the people would be terrorists themselves.

Well, they are being found, around the world, every day. Read the news paper.

Is the number in the hundreds of thousands? I doubt it, but it is most certainly more than a few dozen.

Before the beginning of the modern jihadist movement, most terrorists were not willing to die for their cause, but they certainly were willing to kill for it. Most terrorists are not all that bright, not by modern standards. Which is how they can convince kids, old folks, women, and others to do what they do. Pohl Pot and the Khmer Rouge showed us that

Any, of any stripe, amateur or otherwise, ever been caught by TSA? Cite please?
I think if such a catch had ever happened, TSA would be screaming it from the web-site, press releases, lob-ball congressional hearings, etc. etc. Anything to justify $6B per annum. And, of course, simply deterring them is umeasurable, so the ritual of pouring money down this hole remains safe. :td::mad:

That's the whole point, Ron, there ISN'T any data and there AREN'T any links, because there haven't been any terror attacks that have been stopped by the TSA. I can't link to something that doesn't exist -- if you think it did, then why don't YOU provide us a link to the pages where Kippie and Blogdad Bob are holding one of their many press conferences about their latest foiled attempt at terror?




Wow! In just a few minutes of "research," you found some flaky right wing "muslims are the bogey man" website! Congrats!

Now give me ten minutes, and I'll produce "research" that PROVES that:

• the holocaust never happened
• santa claus is real
• 1 + 1 = 3
• scientology is the answer to everything
• Kip Hawley is not an idiot

Terrorism rarely rises above the level of petty annoyance, and those who are most concerned about it are concerned because they view it as a threat to their monopoly on the use of violence for political purposes.

Ron, my mind is just spinning trying to keep up with your deep and insightful observations. I hadn't realised before that if only terrorists were smarter, they wouldn't be so dangerous.

So you cant provide links that support your belief. I am not surprised, not one bit.

Here are some things to think about:
http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/ct.htm
Yes, its an FBI web site, but you will note (I hope) that DHS and FBI work together in many of these programs.
http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pd...m2002-2005.pdf
A long read, but informative.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/71512
Not quite on topic, but interesting all the same.
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/u...security-news/
More interesting information

And now for something totally on-topic, please read here:
http://www.theaviationnation.com/200...a-flight-1824/

Funny, I can.

I’m sorry you are unwilling to open your mind. Please feel free to hold on to your unreasonable prejudices as long as they make you comfortable. When you are ready, we will be here.

Is that the royal We, Ron? Who are you including?

"....not all that bright...?" Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge took over the entire country at gun point. How bright does one have to be to notice bad guys using weapons on non-combatants for someone to not comply?

I remember the airports pre 9/11 and remember that the security was much more pleasant then than they are now. As to effectiveness they found my steel toed shoes every time. They discovered pocket change and the occasional Swiss Army knife I forgot to remove.

TSA hasn't flushed any terrorists because the terrorists go after high value targets and since the cockpit doors have been hardened/airlines SOP for dealing with terrorists has changed, they've moved on to bigger and better things. The likelihood of another airline based attack is quite remote since other targets bring in a much higher return on investment.

TSORon, what if there was another attack and because you personally failed a standard screening, allowed the terrorists through to complete their mission? What would you do about that failure? How would TSA spin the failure? I propose that the terrorists know airline/airport security much better than does TSA and the only reason an attack hasn't taken place is due to the return on investment for a large scale terrorist attack.

Oh my stars, where to start? Let's start with the link TSORon gives above.

If you believe that was a terrorist act that was stopped by the TSA and other Federal agencies, why have we heard nothing further on this? Why were not these "terrorists" charged and brought to trial. Why did an FBI agent call the incident "benign?"

Quite honestly, I'm beginning to smell a real right wing extremist here.

No, not a right wing extremist, just someone who's swallowed the DHS/TSA hook, line and sinker. I feel sorry for folks who blindly follow without questioning and TSORon is the ultimate company man.

As I've said in another thread started by Ron he really isn't worth wasting any band width on. If this link is the best he can offer to defend his position why is anyone bothering to respond anymore. Its time to deal with Ron the only way how, by not getting involved with him any more. You can't teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

According to the DHS I am a Right Wing extremist, or as we like to call them here, Americans.

You are "a wing and a prayer" rather than a wingnut, Trollkiller. ;)

I don't know what it is that bothers me so much about this post, but I really don't like the whole "you're guilty until proven innocent" vibe I'm getting from his post. This is a nation where you're innocent until proven guilty. TSA's job is to screen us for explosives, guns, and other dangerous items. Leave the determination of who's a terrorist and who isn't to the FBI, CIA, and other agencies who know what they're doing.

In America, you're not supposed to have to prove that you're not guilty in the first place. That's what probable cause is for. Blogger Bob claims that he doesn't know if we're a terrorist or not. Why does it matter? As long as you don't have any explosives, guns, or other dangerous items on you, then you're deemed safe to be on an aircraft.

I don't see why TSA is even posting this in the first place. Again, their responsibility is to screen us for the following mentioned above, and they're not FBI.

I can see the press release now..."TSA is pleased to announce that the FAA investigation of the wreckage of the flight in yesterday's terror attack revealed no water, no toothpaste, or other prohibited items amongst the debris. TSORon has received the special TSA service award for his successful discovery of an artfully concealed tube of lip balm in a carry-on belonging to one of the terrorists, which was detected and seized at the airport. 'Not all screeners are aware that lip balm is a banned gel,' said TSORon in a statement at the award ceremony held at the crash site, 'but the terrorists who did this picked the WRONG CHECKPOINT yesterday morning if they thought they were going slip a tube on board,' noted Ron while indicating the smoking remains of the aircraft."

You mean, I've......lost......<gasp>.......that title?

I demand a recount! JFC!!! I've been cheated!

Weren't you just recommending decaf a little while ago? What made you switch?

Much as it irks me, I will have to agree with Ron. TSA is there primarily to deter terrorists from accessing the secure area of the terminal.

You all jumped to disputing that the TSA has ever caught a terrorist. That they haven't (examples to the contrary PLEASE ;) ) does not mean that nonehave been deterred by our vigilant screeners and SPOTniks. How many ? You'd have to ask the terrorists, but they probably aren't going to tell you.

Of course, all the other loopholes (or oppportunities depending who you are) still exist, and I don't see any attempt to deter say, driving a truck through the flimsy perimeter fence/gates, a suicide body bomber in the terminal or a drive-by massacre of the poor fools lining up on the sidewalk. Still, that's not Ron's job; it's err.., umm.., nobody's I guess.

I agree that airport security is far from pointless. We do need security in order to prevent stupid passengers from bringing unsafe items aboard aircraft. Where we diverge is your apparent belief that we need TSA to fulfill this function.

Lax gate security did not cause the 9/11 hijackings. Yet the taxpayers and the traveling public have had TSA foisted upon them by a government intent on "doing something" post 9/11. Even though sane and cool heads within government knew very well that the hijackings weren't the fault of pre 9/11 gate security, TSA and its corps of "professional" screeners are the product of a CYA mentality in government that overrode sanity and common sense in the weeks and months following 9/11.

I know this from direct participation in interagency meetings during that time.

Folks, we've had to delete several posts as inflammatory, personal commentary.

Please stick to the topic at hand and refrain from commenting on your fellow FT'ers.

Thanks for your cooperation.

______________________

Cholula
Travel Safety/Security Forum Moderator

Go read over there at PV. Plenty of conflicting info over there. TSA doesn't do anything to rein in the screeners that are giving bad info.

I don't disagree with you that gate security didn't cause the hijackings. I do disagree with you that private security companies could do better. Let me define, at this point, what I mean by private security companies: companies hired by airlines to perform passenger screening in accordance with FAA regulations and other applicable policies independent of TSA efforts. Contrary to popular belief, there are no private security companies working today at airports under this definition. There are a small handful of non-TSA employees who work at airports performing these functions, but they are, for all intents and purposes, more like government contractors than they are true private security companies. They are hired, trained and evaluated on the exact same standard as TSA employees. The only difference is their uniforms and personnel management system.

Having said that, TSA is far superior to the private screening companies that existed pre-9/11. The training is far superior, the resourcing is far superior, and the cooperation with other agencies is far superior.

The challenge is in personnel management, leadership and operational supervision. That's no different than any other organization. In this area, I think TSA needs improvement not because it's a failure but because I believe it can do so much better. I think Kip Hawley did a great job trying to improve TSA through innovation and proactive thinking; I think he was far better than any of the other administrators we had previous to him. Yeah, I'm the first to say that the BDO program needs to go, but not because it doesn't work. It does work, it's extraordinarily effective! My problem is that so far it's done a great job at catching drug smugglers, and I think that will detract us from our primary mission if we continue with this program. Would it be a good tool for catching a would-be terrorist? You betcha! However, looking at it strictly in terms of bang-for-the-buck, I think the techniques used by BDOs would be better served incorporated into the checkpoint than being segregated as something super secret and specialized. I think the manpower devoted to BDOs would be better served working at checkpoint and checked baggage screening, but the techniques they use could be incorporated into regular screening.

I think the screening technologies TSA has brought about are needed and far superior to anything the private companies were able to develop. I worked in management for a private security company and as a checkpoint supervisor (I basically forced them to demote me so I could work the floor). The private security company I worked for was more interested in protecting its profit margin than it was in improving checkpoint security. It only did enough to survive FAA inspections, and even then, was frequently found in violation and had to pay fines in tens of thousands of dollars. You would think the FAA would terminate the contract, but it never happened (until TSA finally took over the operation).

Yeah, you're right, federalizing checkpoint screening was not a direct remedy. And you can blame media hysteria for part of that. If you recall, there were a lot of news stories that came out during that time pointing out the flaws in airport security screening and only inflamed demands for a federalized screener workforce. But I disagree with you that there's a better alternative than TSA. I think TSA does fulfill this function; and I think TSA still has room to grow and improve.

It's amazing what security innovations can occur if an organization ignores the law and makes up the rules as they go.

If Kippie really was that great compared to other administrators, then it really shows the level of incompetence that has infested TSA from the beginning. Tells me that the lack of terrorist attacks comes more from luck than from anything TSA is doing.

At least the other administrators didn't harass us as much with their incompetence as Kippie has with his.

I can always recognise failure to be accountable when someone starts blaming "the media". "The media" doesn't create problems, it reports on them. If there were a "lot of news stories" it was because there were a lot of things happening that were newsworthy.

I'm not blaming the media for any failure. I am pointing out that during the aftermath of 9/11, there were a lot of media stories about the problems private airport security companies had at performing their jobs. If I recall correctly, I think the proverbial straw involved Argenbright security, a very reputable company, that allowed several grenades, guns and knives to slip through one of its checkpoints in a media-staged event. If you don't think this inflamed the debate of private vs. federal that was ongoing at the time, then you're just being disingenuous to this whole discussion.

I'm really disappointed in you. You used to have such insightful posts and now resort to silliness. You seriously believe that TSA could get away with ignoring the law with Congress looking over its shoulders? You don't believe that TSA was held accountable by Congress? You are aware that until very recently, TSA employees were the only federal employees to NOT receive any pay raises, bonuses or other salary rewards? Don't you think if TSA really abused the system as you allege, that it would certainly come up with some sort of pay incentives to retain employees? Fact is that TSA lost a lot of its employees because the pay scale remained static for the first four years (cost of living adjustments are not pay raises).

Well call me silly too, but I do not believe Congress does either of those things. They were supposed to but, with a couple of courageous exceptions, nobody there is going to do anything remotely appearing to be "soft" on the WoT. Congress looking over its shoulders ? How many times has the oversight committee actually met and what if anything of substance has come out of it ? And I don't mean your pay grades or fancy, aggrandizing titles; I mean holding the TSA accountable to the law.

Show me I'm wrong. Please.

Sure, do your own research. Google congressional testimonies by TSA administrators and take your pick from the 5,700 hits.

I have to admit that I am somewhat puzzled that you or anyone else seriously believes that TSA is outside the law and/or that Congress does nothing to monitor TSA. :rolleyes:

Sure. Just look at the last round where Kippie went to Congress for TSA cheating on exams. Congress beat its chest and then things went away. Nothing changed.

We've been discussing this with the passive MMW that they're testing at BOS. There's Supreme Court decisions that show they're pretty much out of bounds. Go read Kyllo vs. US. Compare that to what TSA's doing and the claims TSA's making vs. what the cops made. They're very similar. It's not my problem if you come late to the party and don't see it.

I'm not convinced TSA's CGC really knows what she's doing, considering she was in charge when one of her lawyers almost blew the Moussaoui trial and she results to Google for definitions when the definitions she needs are included in the law she's citing. If anything, it indicates she's playing fast and loose with the law.

Tell me, Bart, outside of some occasional chest thumping, what has Congress actually done to monitor TSA? I see no evidence of them actually doing anything outside of a few occasional show pieces.

Congress made sure we closed that big loophole of permitting lighters on board. :rolleyes: (which thankfully has now been rescinded)