oh, and by the way, for the first time since 9/11, the TSA did not inspect the checked bag that had my laptop in it--i've probably flown 30 times since then, and they have always done so

I've had something similar happen. Let me put this into context first. I am a barely 5 foot tall blonde who looks very young for her age. When I was about 18 (looking about 14), I went to Atlanta to hop on a flight to visit my father in California. I was going through security when they thought they saw something in my bag. A large security guard picked up my bag and asked whose it was. When I identified it as mine, he giggled. Yes - GIGGLED. Even the guards know it's insane. All they got out of it was a two inch pair of sewing scissors. Nice. I guess I could have gouged someone's eyes out with them, but seriously?

She looks dangerous to me - she could disable any sky marshal in 3 seconds using nothing but cute.

Out of respect, I will not identify the airline that flagged my 5 year old daughter as a terror suspect.

Um...the name of the airline is right in the picture.

I suspect the airport contraband list is actually somebody's grocery list. It's bulk shopping, like Cost-Co.

I truly don't understand the liquid ban. For example, if it takes 20 ounces of two separate chemicals to make an explosive device (which is out there now) what is to stop four guys from taking in enough individual 3 ounce containers to make enough explosive to blow a hole in the side of a plane. If there is a legitimate concern about this then all liquids should be banned or checked into your luggage. The last time I checked pretty much every city that has an airport has some sort of store where more shampoo and saline can be purchased. Yeah, it is convenient to bring it from home, but it isn't a necessity.

texaspartan, you raise a good point -- further, once i pass through security, i can purchase as much liquid as i want at the shops in the airport itself -- how hard would it really be for the bad guys to plant someone in the shop to sneak through as much contraband as you want in the guise of a soda bottle

I can understand having to look at little kids.
If we don't, the jihadis will start loading up 5 year old kids with explosives.
We're fighting animals, and not the good kind (the kind that taste good once you kill them). They have no sense of shame, decency or proportion. They will kill anybody and anything for their religion.

They just seize stuff at airport security checkpoints so they can sell it on eBay.

http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZpastatesurplus

Re: the only danger being access to the cabin

It may not be possible for a terrorist to gain access to the cabin anymore, but that doesn't mean they couldn't blow a nice hole in the passenger area, or (this is just theoretical, I have no idea if it's possible) throwing open a door and tossing people out.

And now for anecdotes: My blonde pretty lawyer sister-in-law had to fly to New Orleans every week for about a year back in, I think 2002. She got flagged just about every time for special screening. And my mother gets run through the wringer just about every time she flies. (Although with my mother there's a reason, she unknowingly tried to go through security with a swiss army knife in her purse. The scary part is, she was caught on the *return* flight.) You'd think I'd be in favor of racial profiling, but I'm not. We stop screening white boys, they recruit white boys. We stop screening little kids, they start recruiting shamed mothers to sacrifice their babies.

I would hope that someone's screening the shop workers as carefully as they're screening the passengers.

Explosives are the real threat. Guns and knives should not matter if the cockpit door is properly constructed and people on the plane will fight back. I sure that the liquid ban has a factor of saftey that would require more than a couple guys to combine their 'hair gel'. btw - coming out of Hong Kong, they check your bag a second time on the jetway just before you get on the plane so you can't pick up something between security and the plane. That would probably make more sense here too.

I agree Veeshir. These people will strap bombs on babies, the elderly, or pets. Its not that a little kid will be a terrorist. Its that maybe a white terrorist may have strapped some C4 to her.

Veeshir -- a few years back some AQ affiliated group had someone get an Irish girl pregnent and then tried to sneak explosives on her (she did not know, she just thought her "boyfriend" had given a wrapped package). So even cute little 5 year olds need occasionally to be searched I guess.

Several years ago I was placed on a no fly list. Every time I flew I was pulled out of line and subjected to the special search.

It may be due to the fact that I have a common name (at least common among Italians and Italian Americans) so there probably was some anarchist in Rome with the same name as me. Or it may be due to the fact that I had purchased a lot of one way last minute flights during my mother's final illness.

Actually, it was helpful as added security was still new, and the lines at the airport were very long and slow. I got to go on the special line and pretty much get through quicker.

We become less safe every time somebody asks "is this really making us safer?" because it trivializes security. A Democratic President will shamelessly pander to the masses by calling for airport security to be ended, citing the hassle. Americans will vote for that person en masse.

And we know what happens after that. People die.

"They" obviously fear the mighty FrankJ's impending candidacy, and are trying to intimidate him through his associates....

It was my understanding that 9/11 happened because the hijackers were able to gain access to the flight cabin -- a problem that has been done away with.

Actually, Happy, this particular problem hasn't been fixed. Consumer Reports just put out this seven-part series detailing why airport security measures are as much about creating the illusion of safety as they are about actually deterring terrorists. Among other things, CR claims it's still far too easy to break down those supposedly "fortified" flight-deck doors.

I go through the TSA screening 5 days a week, unless I'm on vacation. (I'm an air traffic controller at one of the only airports that doesn't have separate security measures for the control tower.) I do think that security measures need to be taken. I'm just disappointed that, 6 years after 9/11, the current TSA dinner theater is treated like its a real security screening process.

The TSA seems to labor under the assumption that the appearance of security is every bit as effective as actual security measures. I'm not going to go into detail here, but repeated attempts to get flaws rectified through a variety of channels have been met with an institutional indifference only equaled by the Post Office.

Beyond security concerns, there is just the complete indifference to the idea of service. The airline schedule is known in advance and changes very little from week to week. After about the second week, it should stop being a surprise to the TSA that a huge bunch of passengers show up at the same time every day. I'd feel more sympathy if I didn't get an overhead view of their break area on my way to the checkpoint. "Lets see. Three lines open, 60% of visible TSA personnel at tables in the break area, checkpoint Conga line at capacity. It must be Tuesday." Its like they are sitting in their break area completely puzzled as to why all the passengers keep showing up during their morning coffee.

Just remember, one of the unsuccessful assassination attempts against Bhutto was just that sort of thing. A man had strapped bombs to his child, and tried to hand him (her?) to Bhutto. A sharp guard caught on just in time (but not for a lot of people). These guys are remorseless bastards who will exploit any oportunity to lower your guard. It's something to remember.

BTW, just for arguments sake, so what if the cockpit door is secured? What's to stop them from killing passengers/flight crew outside the cockpit one by one till they open the door? How long do you think you could hold out listening to the die?

On the bright side, I think anyone who tries to hijack a plane anytime soon isn't gonna find a load of cooperative people and is gonna get bullrushed. Unless it's a flight to a Democrat event, in which case they'll probably ask for autographs before the plane hits it's target...

But you all need to remember: as long as security doesn't do that to Middle-Eastern looking people, then it's OK; we don't want to make anyone uncomfortable by profiling them. I mean, if we did that, someone might get their feelings hurt!

And after all, what's worse- hurt feelings or toppled skyscrapers full of people?

Ask the ACLU.

The post 9/11 airport security has always been mostly about creating the appearance of having done something. Rounding up twice the nunmber of usual suspects if you will.

My favorite story was from Paul Harvey, where a low-level Ag Department functionary used a little-known loophole to carry a weapon onto an airplane. After verifying that this office holder was indeed statutorally allowed to carry a fire arm on board the plane, the screeners allowed them to board with weapon. But they confiscated the fingernail clipper because that was not allowed.

Um...the name of the airline is right in the picture.

WOOOOSH! - Here's your sign...

Raving Lunatic -- One the first flight I took after 9/11 (in February 2002), my wife and I headed to Denver. On the plane was this very strange woman who was acting strangly. She was walking around with a stuffed animal in her coat and mumbling to herself and everyone else.

My someone wishy washy liberal of a wife asked me what I thought. I made it clear -- if she stood up and started waving the thing around I was taking her down. I could always appologize later.

Sometime in 2002 on the Subway there was a middle eastern looking guy in a bulky coat reading from a notebook with arabic writing, mumbling to himself. The guy standing across from him looked at me and you could tell we had the same thought. Again, my idea, if he stood up and said something, I was going to take him down and appologize later. (I figured I would make it look as though I lost my balance and I would just feel under his coat.

Lucky for me, we came to a stop and he got off.

Beyond security concerns, there is just the complete indifference to the idea of service.

Mmm, yes, and why is that? Because they work for the government, and their jobs don't depend on giving good service, or even on doing Job #1 (security) right, because the TSA isn't going to go out of business if they can't do their job to the customer's satisfaction. They stay in business as long as 535 lawyers in Washington think they should. Doesn't matter what you mere citizens think. This is why the TSA in "action" seems so strongly reminiscent of the post office at 4:55 PM on Christmas Eve, with the strong odor of It's Not My Problem permeating the employee side of the counter.

Brilliant idea, federalizing airport security, wasn't it?

Next up, we'll get President Hillary to nationalize health care, so we can get the same "service" from the physician and hospital that we now get from the TSA and the post office. Ha ha, what a joke this self-destructive folly would be, if it weren't so tragic.

Two years before 9/11, one had to negotiate multiple levels of security at the Manila airport. You first had to present a ticket to an armed guard just to gain access to the terminal. Then all of your bags were xrayed. Then you got to check in. You and your carry-on then got to go through metal detector/x-ray again, with 100% manual "wanding" of passengers. Then, just prior to boarding your flight, all carry-on bags were unpacked and inspected. A year later it was revealed that an Al Qaida plot to blow up several planes en route to the US from the PI had been thwarted.

My first flight after 9/11 was back into the country about 1 week later. The screening in Taiwan included removing your shoes...a full year before Richard Reid.

What do both of these have in common? They were pro-active, not reactive. That is what is wrong with TSA today. Why do you think the "flying imams" acted so obvious? It was clearly a test of our reaction. If I were an Al Qaida terrorist hell bent on taking down a plane, I would dress and act as Islamic as possible, knowing that TSA would be too concerned about Political Correctness to harass me instead of your 5 year old daughter.

TSA responds to yesterday's threat. Al Qaida is already planning next week's.

Poor Solveig. Having a dad like you who can't even protect her from being patted down.

You know, the TSA's actions seem over the top, but unfortunately, we are facing an enemy that thinks that strapping a bomb onto a child to blow up innocent bystanders gets you a ticket to boink 72 virgins for eternity.

Unfortunately, we have Democrats who wonder who is on the right side in that fight.

Cute kid, BTW, Cadet.

"And now, there are these extra restrictions regarding batteries, which I don't really understand."
Lithium batteries have a nasty tendency to go boom when mistreated. That is why restrictions have been placed on them. I have been dumbfounded for years that TSA lets you carry them at all. Try shipping a case of Lithium batteries sometime, and see what the shipper has to say.

well, she did make my puppy throw up. so, probably best to make sure she wasn't taking a bag of corn chips on the plane to give to everyone. ;D

I checked pretty much every city that has an airport has some sort of store where more shampoo and saline can be purchased. Yeah, it is convenient to bring it from home, but it isn't a necessity.

#6 - Posted by: Texaspartan on January 22, 2008 09:38 AM

The Abujah International airport in Nigeria does not. I should know I was just there on Wednesday.

"I sure that the liquid ban has a factor of saftey that would require more than a couple guys to combine their 'hair gel"
11 - Posted by: Andrew C on January 22, 2008 11:02 AM

Actually Andrew C, I can get enough hand sanatizer on an airplane to make a bomb with that plus my a cheap flashlight. the best way to stop them is to hit their training camps see what happened at glasgow as an example.(incomplete training=incompetent terrorist)

"We become less safe every time somebody asks "is this really making us safer?" because it trivializes security. Sanjayrupta Pravati"

We become less safe because few people ask whether the amount of security is necessary or not. Giving up constitutional rights in the name of security does NOT make you, me, or anyone else more secure. I think the TSA non-security is just the desensitizing of Americans to the loss of their rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search-and-seizure. After all, it is for our own good isn't it?

My thoughts in the last year of flying (2003) was,
"My, how many fat, bald, 50 year old white guys hijacked planes on 9/11?, How many grandmothers? How many medal-of-honor winners? How many 20 year tenured pilots?" (The list goes on)

Everytime the TSA makes one of THOSE public snafu's, THATS'S what trivializes security. Not questioning "WHY?", or "Is it the RIGHT security?".

I'm just so glad I don't have to fly anymore.....

"We become less safe every time somebody asks "is this really making us safer?" because it trivializes security. Sanjayrupta Pravati"

We become less safe because few people ask whether the amount of security is necessary or not. Giving up constitutional rights in the name of security does NOT make you, me, or anyone else more secure. I think the TSA non-security is just the desensitizing of Americans to the loss of their rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search-and-seizure. After all, it is for our own good isn't it?

My thoughts in the last year of flying (2003) was,
"My, how many fat, bald, 50 year old white guys hijacked planes on 9/11?, How many grandmothers? How many medal-of-honor winners? How many 20 year tenured pilots?" (The list goes on)

Everytime the TSA makes one of THOSE public snafu's, THATS'S what trivializes security. Not questioning "WHY?", or "Is it the RIGHT security?".

I'm just so glad I don't have to fly anymore.....

I got caught at DFW with an ASP baton in my laptop bag. It had been given to me a week before and I just put it in there and forgot about it. Just having it there chould have got me charged with a felony, but some judgment ws exercized. (I had my military ID, military haircut and an ACU pattern laptop bag.)

I suppose we could get outraged that they checked my bag so thoroughly when I was clearly a military member, but that was an actual weapon. I was NOT supposed to have it there. They caught it and they didn't hassle me, and instead gave me every opportunity to even be able to keep it. (My car was at another concourse and it wan't worth it and didn't have time--so I surrendered it.)

I have no gripes with searching people that seem like they'd be harmless and it's not a PC issue or a non-profiling issue either. It's a matter of not allowing the bad guys to profile us.

If they learn that we don't search guys with military haircuts--they'll get those haircut themselves, or sneak things into our carryons when we aren't paying the attention we should. 70 year old ladies? Tell me that they all have their purses zipped closed and clutched under their arms every moment. Cute 5 year old girls? Tell me that someone couldn't tell them that they had to carry this little package on the plane for them or their daddy would get hurt.

Anyway--it's the sme thing we do at checkpoints overseas.

The only gripes I have are the lists of things that they tell you can't have, and the myriad things that you can have that will still do the same thing--the weapons potential in a ball point pen, or a stiffly rolled up in-flight magazine, or just a keychain.