TSA: The Stupid Agency

Predictably, TSA is responding to the most recent airplane terrorism incident by piling on even more stupid and ineffectual restrictions on passengers:

In the wake of the terrorism attempt Friday on a Northwest Airlines flight, federal officials on Saturday imposed new restrictions on travelers that could lengthen lines at airports and limit the ability of international passengers to move about an airplane. ...

... several airlines released detailed information about the restrictions, saying that passengers on international flights coming to the United States will apparently have to remain in their seats for the last hour of a flight without any personal items on their laps. It was not clear how often the rule would affect domestic flights.

Overseas passengers will be restricted to only one carry-on item, and domestic passengers will probably face longer security lines. That was already the case in some airports Saturday, in the United States and overseas.

On its Web site, American Airlines said the T.S.A. had ordered new measures for flights departing from foreign locations to the United States, including mandatory screening of all passengers at airport gates during the boarding process. All carry-on items would be screened at security checkpoints and again at boarding, the airline said. It urged passengers to leave extra time for screening and boarding.

In effect, the restrictions mean that passengers on flights of 90 minutes or less would most likely not be able to leave their seats at all, since airlines do not allow passengers to walk around the cabin while a plane is climbing to its cruising altitude.

Of course, none of these new restrictions would have impeded the bomber. He was fine with staying in his seat. To the contrary, it was the passenger who subdued the bomber that left his seat. Extra screening of carry on luggage would have been no problem for the bomber, since the bomber had the bomb sewn into his underwear.

Radley Balko nailed it:

Seems to me that what this, Flight 93, and the Richard Reid incident have shown us is that the best line of defense against airplane-based terrorism is us. Alert, aware, informed passengers.

TSA, on the other hand, equates hassle with safety. For all the crap they put us through, this guy still got some sort of explosive material on the plane from Amsterdam. He was stopped by law-abiding passengers. So TSA responds to all of this by . . . announcing plans to hassle law-abiding U.S. passengers even more.

If you’re really cynical, you could make a good argument that they’re really only interested in the appearance of safety. They’ve simply concluded that the more difficult they make your flight, the safer you’ll feel. Never mind if any of the theatrics actually work.

James Joyner likewise contributes a dose of reality to counter TSA stupidity:

We’re simply going to make people miserable for no apparent reason. There have been precisely three attempts over the last eight years to commit acts of terrorism aboard commercial aircraft. All of them clownishly inept and easily thwarted by the passengers. How many tens of thousands of flights have been incident free? And, yet, we’re going to make hundreds of thousands of people endure transcontinental flights without reading materials or the ability to use the restroom?

At least for domestic flights, we have the ability as consumers to tell TSA to stick it and just drive. More of us are making that choice all the time. But there’s no real alternative to flight for overseas travel.

Has TSA ever considered the possibility that maybe the terrorists aren't really interested in blowing up a plane. Maybe the terrorists figure they win everytime we in the West spend millions of man-hours being hassled, inconvenienced, and generally put upon by a myriad of stupid security measures.

So here's my question: When are we going to rebel and demand a sensible set of precautions?

Comments

[save_the_rustbelt]

A few years ago my elderly mother flew home from Kansas the day after her birthday.

Her Ohio driver's licensed was expired by one day.

She instantly was a threat to the flying public and was pulled aside for extra screening (she did have a speeding ticket once, in 1959). She was eventually allowed to board.

Luckily she is pretty ornery and didn't take the insult too personally.

TSA = Thousands Standing Around

[Anal_yst]

How to rebel (effectively), though, that 'tis the question...

[htom]

Thousands Stupidly Annoying.

[Alex]

What sensible restrictions are there, then? How would you have stopped the terrorist in question? Examine everyone's underwear? Racial profiling? Give every passenger the right to tackle other passengers based on their own suspicions? I know the guy's father claimed his son was dangerous. If my father was an ass and decided to claim I was dangerous for the hell of it, I would like to be able to fly.

[humpty-dumpty]

Another good sign of the self-delusion permeating our security policy. Al-Quaeda will keep sending these "tests" through the system to see our reaction and then make the adjustments necessary for success when they actually put their next plan into action. They got the explosive through security in their guy's BVD's - what would happen if five of them wore union suits? And they can still leave their seats when the bombs would do the most damage -mid-flight.

[Jerry Wright]

If the ONLY warning sign had been the claims of the father, well, sure, discount it. But there were multiple signs, and the various agencies were aware of the them.

And did nothing. After all... We can't 'profile'... If you are a disaffected Muslim radical, you SHOULD be profiled. But it is easier to go after Grandma.

[Mike]

Can we ask the stewardess for a container to piss in? Or a zip lock bags so that we can hold the piss in as we must with all liquid? Wait what if I piss more then 100ml?

If they insist on a second security check point at the gate, why don't they just move the security check point to the gate, so we only go though it once? I belief the Singapore airport does that. Oh, right, how else will they sell those USD10 soda that you can pay 50cents for at a vending machine. They do need to pay those TSA guys.

[jdj]

Everyone talks about how good Israeli security is. What do they do? Are their measures impractical to implement in the US?

[someguy]

We have a bunch of total buffoons running the country.

The latest spin from the Washington Post is that handing over to the the FBI a card-carrying member of al-Qa'ida isn't enough.

You have to know their specific plans in order for the threat to "rise above the noise level" and cause the terrorist to be required to receive a pat-down before he brings his bombs onto the plane.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34607476/ns/us_news-washington_post/

[Andrew Lale]

Anybody who knows El-Al and their complete and total success at defeating terror attacks on their planes knows it can be done. You just have to do it the way they do it. Racial profiling, age profiling, banning people who are in any way a risk, interviewing people who may be a risk, both random and non-random searching. The means to do the job properly are all tried and tested. What stops them from being implemented? Moronic political correctness and the politics of APPEARING to be even-handed.
People will definitely die because of those two things. Why should we allow our politicians and bureaucrats to sacrifice those lives on the altar of stupid politics?

[Casey Jones]

Ok Alex...I'll take the bait. Rather than labor under the belief that political correctness is a virtue, than yes, I do believe that passngers from certain countries should be screened more heavily. And if a passenger is on a "watch list", than yes, that passenger has to pass more screening and scrutiny. Sorry if that hurts any of these passengers feelings or if they feel "profiled". This is about people's lives. The only thing the TSA is doing now is making it more difficult for the non-threats to get on board. And by having to play the faux security game with everybody, they cannot really focus on those who are the real threats. Call it behavior detection, call it racial profiling (itself a PC term), whatever, let's get serious about focusing on the real threats.

p.s. Note that all, that's right all, of the attempts at blowing up airplanes have been done by radical muslim men, primarily originating from, or with ties to, Middle Eastern countries (in this lasy case, training in Yemen). Go figure where the real threat lies and its not with white haired grandmas or, despite Janet Napolitano's assertions, ex US Military members or Christians.

[Pink Pig]

As you very nearly pointed out, the TSA is giving the terrorists exactly what they are looking for, more hassle.

[tim maguire]

"If you’re really cynical, you could make a good argument that they’re really only interested in the appearance of safety."

Cynical? I've thought it for years and always considered it an obvious truth. Security measures are designed to be conspicuous to passengers, not to block the easiest or most likely routes to terrorist acts.

The greatest disaster for the TSA in particular and the government in general is if citizens wake up to the fact that they themselves, and not the government, are the best line of defense.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Alex:

Why did we give a 2 year visa to someone who seemed to have no legitimate interest in visiting the United States? A tourist? Maybe we could survive with a few less Muslim tourists.

[Johnv2]

Alex, how about starting off by examining every individual on a watch list (like the underwear bomber). How about taking the El Al approach, stop looking for weapons, and start looking for terrorists? I think we've pretty conclusively proved that the TSA is incapable of finding weapons (ask Mr. Google about all the people who have boarded with firearms by accident, and about the results of TSA's own tests). I also suggest firing the Sec. of Homeland Security, and letting her fire whomever she wishes on her way out the door. Make it clear to the next Sec. that screwups will be rewarded with the boot, and make it clear to federal employees that these kinds of failure result in no protection from immediate for-cause dismissal.

[Stuart]

Someone should check on Lewis Black. Surely he needs a drink or some other medication. We need to keep him going for at least one more rant on air travel security.

[franco53]

It is known that bombs do the most damage at altitude because of cabin pressure. In other words, you need LESS explosive power to crash the plane in mid-flight than when coming down to land.

I'm beginning to believe they must be trying to make everyone angry.

[howard james]

And this is the same organization we want running our HEALTH CARE????

[DJ]

Joyner wrote: All of them clownishly inept and easily thwarted by the passengers.

I hate it when people say this. Clownishly inept? Let Joyner's life hang on whether one of these "clowns" manages to light a fuse or get a detonator to work, and then see if he says the same thing.

Sure: it's all clownish and inept until they manage to light the thing. Then it's tragic. Lots of clownish and inept attempts at bank robbery end up as mass murders.

None of this, of course, is to say that TSA's new rules -- or their old ones -- aren't feckless and absurd.

[Community Organizer]

The real goal of TSA is to punish the citizens, the idiots who have to fly coach. The elites, members of our ruling class don't have to obey these rules. They get private planes at taxpayer expense. So why do they get privileges that taxpayers don't ?

[Jerome]

I think you are ALL missing the point. The point is that almost all TSA employees have unions, they pay dues which are then funnelled to the Democratic Party, and they vote for Democrats. When Napolitano says the system worked, she means that the system is working.

[drjohn]

The stupidity has reached the breaking point.

No blankets, no laptops, no toilet during a flight, no clothes other than underwear- that can't be far away. How much more do we all have to suffer for the crimes of the few?

It's time to take these idiots out of office and OUT of control.

The time for profiling has come.

[TCJ]

Napolitano had nothing to do with it. This guy's Visa was issued by the State Department, not TSA.

[robert smith]

1941: despite 1937 war games featuring a proposed enemy carrier attack on Hawaii, the admiral at Pearl Harbor and the general in charge of hawaiian air security said they "didn't know" exactly what the Japanese had in mind. The Govt reacted by rounding up domestic Japanese.

2001: despite knowing that terrorists were in the US, that some people were uncommonly interested in flight training, and despite the 1992 attack on the NY twins, the govt had no idea what was coming. After 911, the Govt. eschewed profiling used all over the world, and opted for layers of airport harassment. It insists that Air Marshalls wear suits and no beards.

2006: Richard Reid boards a US bound flight after being turned away as suspicious. No special security is used. Passengers--able to get up without a rule on when they can do so-save the flight.

2009: missing a man identified by his own Nigerian father as an extremist, the Govt.-again instead of doing its job-gives him a visa and fails to get him on the No Fly list. Evidently no Air Marshall was next to him either. Instead of firing the people responsible for this abysmal failure, the Govt insists that all passengers sit for an hour before landing.

When does the government adopt profiling, which every other airline uses with great success?

When do we stop harassing Hispanics, whites, blacks, nuns, rabbis, with the same intensity as people we know are likely to do dangerous things?

[liamascorcaigh]

When you have a situation where someone is prepared to die in order to kill others, it's impossible to cut off all avenues of opportunity. However, the more intrusive the security and the more comprehensive the hassle the more the suicide attacker is forced to resort to more and more rudimentary ad hoc modi operandi with less and less chance of success. Abdulmuttalab's failure to ignite his device was not because of ineptitude but rather a result of the extremely constricted environment now allowed to him.

Vigilance on the ground, no matter how hamfisted, reactive and scattergun, combined with vigilance on board the aircraft, no matter how seemingly paranoid at times, reduced this bomber to fumbling blindly under a blanket with a crudely constructed, amateurish (tho' lethal) device because that was the only way he could interact with it and that was the only kind of device he could smuggle through.

Given the impossibility of infallible security coupled with the suicide mentality of the attackers this is probably the best that can be hoped for.

The watch lists and no fly lists are another matter but in a free society it is equally impossible to track and infallibly exclude every one of many thousands of targeted individuals.