Are you talking about mass killings as in multiple murders or are you talking about mass killings such as a bombing?

Oh, I know the answer, I just like trying to get these TSA types to admit that they have a very poor track record.

How do you know there is no difference? You haven't caught enough terrorists to know whether real terrorists act like felons. tourists, or red team members.

Maybe the magical thinking about detecting the fear of failure (intent to for a felonious act) is how you explain and rationalize the red-team success rates of 75%--the red team isn't worried about getting arrested or failing to detonate a bomb, so they don't display as many intent-to-felonize behaviors, and the BDO layer doesn't apply.


The BDO positive predictive power of less than 1% for druggies and identity thieves (or 0/160000 for terrorists worth the name) might compare favorably with homeopathy, but in industrial quality control situations where defect rates of 1-in-a-million or 1-in-a-billion are common, achieveable goals, TSA BDO error rates are poor.

Bolding above to emphasis point.

Why can't a BDO check travel documents?

They get to see, speak and observe each and every person who moves through that station. What better way to get a quick read on how a person is acting.

I think it would be more of a problem with BDO's feeling a job is beneath them.

I'll give you the point of xray, that person is more focused on the view screen.

WTMD, Strip Search Machine would be perfect places to observe behavior.

Surely you TSA types are capable of multi-tasking like people who work in the private sector do.

99.21% of those that BDOs thought warranted an extra screening or questioning had NO nefarious intent.

With a 99.21% failure rate there is no way that anyone can convince me that the BDO program is not based on junk science. I think you would have a better return using phrenology or chiromancy.

I disagree, and I have been there, albeit in different kinds of cases in which the government's case hinged on real classified information. During the discovery phase, a decent defense attorney (who could very well be the prosecuting attorney if this was some sort of civil rights case brought by a wrongfully-accused airport visitor) would request any & all documents the government possessed relevant to the case. When the TSA whined "SSI", the attorney would notify the judge that the government claimed state's secrets and would ask the judge to compel the government to turn over the SSI information. The government would either turn over the materials or would file a state secrets writ. The judge, if he were a federal judge, would have access to any SSI or classified information in dispute or which he believed was relevant to his decision on introduction of SSI materials in the trial. Both attorneys could be cleared to the level of the material and discuss the matter in camera.

Most judges sincerely want justice to be done and take a hard line at the government's insistence to keep relevant classified information out of discovery or the actual trial. SSI doesn't even approach being real classified information. Some day, very soon, I hope, a judge will tell the TSA to deposit their precious SSI in an orifice or two.

When exactly did you live in Germany and for how long? Sounds more like you are ex-military and did a tour there in the 1980's.

One technical observation about the above - the discussion of whether the information sought to be excluded from disclosure would be conducted between the judge and the attorney from the government - not the attorney seeking disclosure on behalf of his/her client.

That said, it an open question whether TSA SSI information would qualify for the State Secrets Exemption in a civil trial.

The state secret privilege encompasses matters (not just communications) which, if disclosed, would:
� Harm the nation's defense capabilities.
� Reveal intelligence gathering methods.
� Disrupt diplomatic relations with foreign governments.

The Supreme Court sustained the privilege in United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953). Although the rationale of Reynolds expressly drew only upon the common law, part of that opinion, as well as other cases, suggest that the privilege has a constitutional basis founded upon the President's duties in the areas of national security and foreign affairs.

To invoke the privilege successfully, the government need only demonstrate that "there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged." Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 10.

While I can't find any cases discussing whether SSI would be afforded State Secret-level protection, the government has a fairly easy hurdle to overcome. In Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 1159, C.A.9 (Nev.),1998:

I facilitated redacted classified information disclosure for a qui tam suit in the late 1980s in which both attorneys were present in camera for these discussions. The hearing was delayed for several weeks while the plaintiff's attorney was cleared to the TS/codeword level.

If the judge upholds the government's claims of states secrets during discovery and the government is the prosecutor or the plaintiff, a good defense attorney will file a motion for dismissal. The government will generally drop the charges rather than reveal classified information in court. If the judge refuses the writ of states secrets, and if the government is the prosecutor or the plaintiff, the government will generally drop the case for the same reasons.

If the government is the defendant, the judge will generally rule for the citizen plaintiff or the government will try to settle out of court.

I remember that Judge Brinkman in the Moussaui 20th hijacker case, ruled against the government in a writ of state's secrets petition. It didn't really matter, since Francine the Goolging Lawyer and her employee, Carla Martin, pretty much blew the case on their own.

*****

Bart, there was a link in the post Trolkiller was quoting, as was clearly apparent to anyone who can read. According to the figures in that link, 160,000 people have been harassed by BDOs, and only 1,266 arrests have been made as a result of this harassment, and vast majority of those were for things like fake IDs and drugs, none of which have anything to do with security. 1,266 divided by 160,000 is 0.0079125, which means that Trollkiller is right to say that the BDO has a false positive rate of over 99% and is thus prima facie useless and does nothing to make anyone safer.

Its the Behavior Detection Program that doesn't have the numbers to back it up, Bart.

More to the point, though, TK is right, it is junk science.

There are no ex-military, you're either former or retired. Pirmasens 59th Ordinance Brigade (81-84). I lived out in the economy rather than the barracks. It was great and I would have stayed 10 years.

The government must have consented to the presence of the plaintiff's attorney, or they were asleep at the wheel. IMHO, of course.

Correct. But we hardly ever lose.

You mean Judge Brinkema, correct?

And you are correct - Francine and Martin blew that case, IIRC. Not a surprise, really.

You were with a brigade that dealt with statutes?

Sounds like you would have gone through APG the same time I was there.