Has Everyone Seen This New Bulletin?

I saw the news story, too. I don't know how this will impact TSA searches. I am afraid that some over zealous TSA employees will 'target' people who have had surgery (especially recent surgery with obvious scars), those with plates and screws due to broken bones (like my husband), breast implants and other prothesis items. A pat down won't be able to find implanted explosives( if the surgery is done well). But TSA will probably try to make it look like they CAN. Even the new "whole body" scanners won't always "find" such implants (or at least it won't be able to id them as explosives). The thing to note is that this has not yet been "perfected"- it will be difficult to trigger the explosion, and if triggered the bomber's body will "cushion" most of the shock, making it much less 'effective'.

Saw the news report recently as well. I always worry about this kind of stuff more in crowds, like subways, downtown celebrations, etc., than I do for plane travel. Nonetheless, won't change what I do. Gotta live your life.
I don't mind intense searches, as long as they are coupled with other methods as well.

It is inevitable that this will eventually be used and be successful. The problem with USA/EU security is an overdependency on technology to prevent weapons and bombs onto airplanes and little more than lip service at preventing terrorist from getting onto planes. EU/USA entire philosophy of preventing terrorism is to anyone from bringing anything that could potentially be a weapon. With almost no concern about the passenger. In the eyes of the USA/EU, a pregnant 4th generation American, a 70 year old world war II vet that is confined to wheel chair, or member of the House of Representatives are all just as much a threat as a Saudi born 24 year old male whose passport has stamps from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. In order to combat terrorism, the US/EU needs to start focusing on finding terrorists and keep them off the airplane and stop worrying about the size of the bottles of shampoo that a bunch of middle school students from Iowa have in their carry on bags.

In my opinion, this is another of Pistole's inventions to ensure his continued job as head of TSA.

Bravo Ed! Cannot agree more. They don't have to talk about it but they have to start profiling. Not all muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are muslims (with very few exceptions). Current TSA system is very wasteful and inefficient.

In this case I believe that we must behave more like Israel. They start watching you when you arrive at the airport. We were there in 1993 and though we were with a Jewish tour group and we have a Jewish last name, at the airport they questioned us anyway. Technology can only take us so far. But even this new terrorism threat won't keep me from traveling. The only other option is to stay home but to me, that isn't an option.

Totally agree with Ed and Monte. The TSA's theatrics do nothing to make us safer. By the time a terrorist had reached the security line it's way too late. And personally, I object strongly to the "enhanced" pat downs, and to the unknown radiation risk from the new scanners. I'd switch to trains and boats, but now the TSA is deploying VIPR teams at stations. See, e.g. http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/02/28/why-did-tsa-pat-down-kids-adults-getting-off-train/ Your neighborhood mall may be next.

I definitely agree that it's time to start looking at the Israeli security procedures. They seem to work! I'm really puzzled on why this hasn't been done before now? I've seen a few experts interviewed on TV (including those with Israeli air security), and they quite readily admit that technology can not detect all threats. Hopefully the screening procedure doesn't evolve into checking for surgical scars? In the case of devices activated by cell phones, there is an effective solution but it wouldn't be "pretty". On that note, Cheers!

Ken, to answer your question of why not. It is because every time anybody starts talking common sense some weenie claims that it would be racism and violate the 14th amendment. Even though nobody is suggesting we treat second generation Muslim-Americans any different than we treat 6th generation Italian-Americans just focus on people who were born, raised or lived in countries that are a hot bed for terrorist activities, recruitment or training. Then for good measure they will toss in the name Timothy McVeigh. But the truth is Israel has never had an airplane hijacked. I doubt that is because of a lack of trying on behalf of the terrorist so they must be doing something right. And no, Entebbe was not a hijacking of an Israeli plane, it was an Air France plane and the terrorist boarded in Athens.

ed, Thanks for the comments. I'm not familiar with the 14th Amendment, but we must have something similar here as we're also not using the Israeli model. I fail to see any issues with this type of profiling, as it apparently focuses on behaviour rather than ethnicity. If someone looks suspicious and exhibits specific "markers", they should be screened further. I was astounded to watch the recent news stories about the individual in the U.S. that took a couple of flights using expired boarding passes belonging to other people and using only a student ID card as his "official" identification! Someone was clearly "asleep at the switch" on those occasions. Perhaps in future airport screeners will be provided with Ultrasound equipment for secondary screening. That WOULD provide images of surgically implanted devices. If someone objects to being screened in that fashion due to "an invasion of privacy", then they DON'T FLY - very simple! Cheers!

That's right you are from Canada. The 14th amendment wouldn't mean much to you. It was one of the three amendments that were passed post-Civil War. Among other things it gives all people equal protection under the law and makes it illegal for the government to discriminate based on race or ethnicity. But I agree with you we are not talking about ethnic discrimination. If you spend 6 months living in Pakistan or other countries with known terrorist training camps we should be suspicious you are a terrorist regardless of you ethnic background. Plus our 14th amendment only applies to US citizens, there is nothing in our Constitution that says you can't discriminate against Saudis but be more trusting of Swedes. And quite frankly I am not that worried about US citizens getting on airplanes and trying to blow it them up using an oversized tube of toothpaste.

ed, you might want to read the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sasha, I have. And a whole bunch of cases interpreting it. What part of what I said do you take issue with?

The implication that it has anything to do with TSA. Edit: I hit "post" too soon. I take issue specifically with this statement: that the Fourteenth Amendment "makes it illegal for the government to discriminate based on race or ethnicity. "

Just to throw in my experience at Dulles Wednesday, coming in from Munich and transferring. I have a pair of metal hips. As Dulles has the old metal detectors, I was flagged. And waited - for 15 minutes, as lined up before me was a crippled woman in a wheel chair, who was already there before i even went through. And after her long wait he was subjected to an unbelievable search, I thought they were even going to remove her from her wheel chair. At other airports, with a wand they were satisfied about my hips with my explanation. not here. They had to handle all my, ahem, baggage. While my shorts, which I bought a couple years back before I lost weight, were practically on he ground as even though they were using no detector as at that point and my belt had gone through the machine I was not allowed to have it back (possibly because I was complaining about the treatment). and of course they were treating everyone who failed the metal detector as misbehaving grade preschoolers who had to stand in the corner.
But what makes this even more idiotic is that, for the benefit of those who don't know Dulles, we had come from the plane through the gate directly to their vehicle which deposited us in immigration - no way to avoid this or get in there otherwise - and then through customs - and up to the security to then get to the departures. There was no way possible for anyone in this path to not be sterile, and there was no need to rescreen. In fact, in Munich we were transferred from the tarmac (no gate) to the next terminal in such fashion that we had no screening, they knew we were on a sterile path. The bs explanation provided was that "once you go through customs you then have to be screened."

Much sympathy, Larry. I used to have a similar aggravation at RDU as after clearing immigration and customs you had to enter the departure section of the terminal building to exit! (Never mind changing planes.) Fortunately this was changed when the terminal was renovated but it seemed so stupid to have to redo security when all you'd done was get off a plane and carry your bags through customs! I haven't flown within the US since the stepped up security measures were introduced last fall and I am NOT looking forward to dealing with them. Unknown radiation or groping...

Ed, if they toss in the name Timothy McVeigh, well that's a very rare exception and then he was not a suicidal terrorist. That remains an exclusive domain of muslims. Obviously nobody else believes in 72 virgins. TSA needs to ask themselves a question. How many times a terrorist was caught who was not a muslim and not a male between twenty and thirty years of age. I cannot help it but I have to bite my tongue and mentally restrain myself not to do something aggressive when I see these idiots from TSA searching 80 or 90 years old grandmas like they are some terrorists.

@Sasha okay, that was a bit of an oversimplification. They can discriminate but it requires passing a strict scrutiny test. @Ilja I agree. Please note: my that my answer to Ken of why not doesn't mean I agree with the why not, I was just outlining the reasons most commonly given why the US can't use common sense and look for terrorists instead of bombs and treat different travelers different.

You still don"t get it. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the rights, privileges and protections embodied in the Constitution binding on the States. It has nothing to do with TSA. If you are going to rant about the Fourteenth Amendment "weenies" you should know of what you speak. Try the First Amendment for starters. And think carefully about how one would go about making exceptions to this bedrock of our constitutional principles for the purpose of keeping Muslims (or any identifiable group) off of airplanes.

And Ilja, what is to keep a fanatic from concealing a bomb in Grannie's Depends? They are evil enough to try that. In fact that possibility is probably why they do search the wheelchair grannies.

The 14th amendment does more than just makes the rights, privileges and protections embodied in the Constitution binding on the States. The equal protection clause of the 14th is what the S. Ct turns to in all discrimination cases. The first amendment is not invoked for cases of discrimination even of religion only for cases of discrimination of religious practice. If congress passed a law saying Catholics couldn't fly on airplanes it would be a 14th amendment issue. If congress passed a law mandating everyone to eat a hamburger on Ash Wednesday that would be a 1st amendment issue. But the thing is I am not saying we should have a law saying Muslims can't fly on airplanes. But I do feel that we can and should require anyone who has been to Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia or Libya other than as part of a US or allied military deployment to undergo a stringent background check and the traveler has the burden of convincing the FBI/TSA/CIA that they had a legitimate reason for the visit other than terrorist training before they can get on an airplane. This would be regardless of the persons religion or nationality.

Take a look at who the defendant is in those Supreme Court cases you are citing. And are they talking about the Fourteenth Amendment or some other?

Sasha, I am not sure what your point is. My point is: That for the safety of our country we need to put less dependency on technology and silly rules that keeps a 7 year-old from bringing a juice box onto an airplane and focus on finding those people who wish to do us harm and keep them off the airplanes and out of our country. Do you agree we need to make these changes? Or are part of the group that thinks we now need to install more machines at the airport to detect this new threat and screen every single person equally regardless of whether any external factors would suggest they are more or less likely to be a threat? Do you support further restrict what everyone can bring onto airplanes every time we find a new potential every day item that could disguise a weapon? Or do you think that maybe we figure out that a group of middle schools students isn't going to use their shampoo bottles to smuggle bombs on-board or that a 70 year old WWII vet is unlikely to use a small Swiss army knife to hijack and airplane and crash it into the pentagon? Do you feel that the response to the incident on American Airlines Flight 63 was the correct one? The screening of every person's shoes? Or do you feel like I that the question should have been why was Richard Reid issued a ticket the second day after screeners initially figured was an al-Qaeda terrorist that ought not fly? And that the result should have been better training and better screening to keep the Richard Reids of the world off of airplanes instead of screening ever bodies shoes?

"It is because every time anybody starts talking common sense some weenie claims that it would be racism and violate the 14th amendment." My point is that if you are going to talk about Fourteenth Amendment "weenies" you ought to know what that amendment stands for. You have taken aim at the wrong amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment protects against State, not federal action. TSA is a federal agency. If you are going to complain about constitutional restrictions on their policies and procedures you might want to point to the right amendment. Due process protection against arbitrary federal action is found in the Fifth, not the Fourteenth Amendment. And then there's this statement: "If congress passed a law saying Catholics couldn't ride on airplanes it would be a 14th amendment issue." Nope. Try the First and Fifth. the Fourteenth does not say a word about what Congress can or cannot do; it only applies to State action. That is why I suggested you check out who the defendant is in each of those Fourteenth Amendment cases you referred to.

Ed, I absolutely agree with you. I just tried to emphasize your point. Now about taking shoes off in this country airports. It makes no sense. I have been to many European airports, I never had to take my shoes off. I asked why we don't have to do it in Europe and it's mandatory in the USA. The answer was that Americans are stupid because you cannot see explosives on X-ray anyway.

No way. A law student would know that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to federal officials or agencies. Constitutional law is complicated, but not that part.

"Do you agree we need to make these changes?" I am afraid I cannot agree with much of anything proposed by someone with so little regard for the Constitution that he labels people who understand how it effects TSA operations as "weenies".

oops, deleted my post I meant to edit it. Oh well. Anyway, lets not turn this into a constitutional law forum. In keeping with this being a travel forum I do wish the TSA would (and I hate to use this word but...) profile. Like Ken said, have no problem with profiling if it is race neutral (oops, was that a con law term?). You would think the FBI, CIA, TSA, etc... have gathered enough information to be able to train people to effectively profile based on factors other than race. I think the reason the federal government doesn't profile is because it would require hiring people a bit smarter than the current TSA screeners. Right now they have people doing a job that doesn't require much thought which makes them cheap employees. If the government had to train skilled law enforcement type workers to profile people based on behavior, travel patterns, etc... that would cost a lot more money then the current technology/forced pat down/take off your shoes/no liquids approach now.

@Sasha the wennies on CNN who argued that going terrorist instead of weapons Israeli style would violated the constitution kept mentioning the 14th amendment. They occasionally tossed in other amendments as well. But that is the one they focused on. The others side argued that it was permissible as long as it was based on thing other than just race or religion, such as countries visited.

@ Scott I am not sure it would be all that expensive although it would require some of the TSA agents become more skilled..... Here is my proposal. For US citizen who are frequently fliers (6 or more travel days per year), require they undergo a background check to determine if they are the type of person who would sneak a bomb onto a plane in bottle of shampoo. For US citizens who are not frequent fliers it would be at their option. Obviously this investigation would not need to be done before each flight. Once it is determined that the VP of marketing for XYZ company is not a risk to sneak a bomb onto an airplane in her shampoo bottles there is no reason to confirm that for every flight. The cost of this background investigation would paid for by a fee by the traveler. Once a traveler is determined to be safe have them go thru the same standard metal detector and screen that existed pre-9/11, but they would be allowed to bring a bottle of water on board and would not be subject to the enhanced screening to make sure they don't have plastic explosives in their underwear. Foreigners who are citizens of safe countries with low risk of terrorism who frequently travel to the US would have option of going thru a similar background check program. Once it is determined that the VP of a logging company from Canada is not a risk to national security he too can bring a bottle of water on the plane and leave his shoes on when going thru security. Continuedd

continued For US travelers that travel infrequently would undergo more enhanced searches but ones that take into account other factors. A family of four traveling to Orlando to see Mickey Mouse is not a the a threat that requires a full body scan. Non-US citizens who have not had a background check would be the most scrutinized and subject to the 3-1-1 rules. The screening would take into account nationality and past travels. A British grandmother would have a very quick screening. A 23 year old male Saudi who spent time in Yemen would need to explain why he was in Yemen to satisfaction of the screeners. Then he would be subject to the most intensive screening available. He would not be allowed to bring on any carry on luggage and his checked bags would be flagged for a very intensive search. If the destination he is traveling to sometimes has air marshals and sometimes doesn't he would be on one with an air marshals even if that means he was delayed at the airport for a day or two. If multiple passengers all from terrorist countries are trying to board the same flight this would raise suspicions as well. continued

In the end I think this will SAVE money. Here is why: The majority of air travelers would require considerable less time time under this proposal than they do now. No longer would we need to search the laptop of every traveling salesman looking looking for a bomb detonator. Just a quick screening to make sure he isn't bring a gun or machete onto the airplane like in the pre-9/11 days. Even most non-US travelers would require less screening under this than we do now. It is just a small number of high risk individuals such as Richard Reid that would require more time. The bulk of the TSA agents could still be the same relatively unskilled idiots who operate the metal detectors today. We would just need less of them. Only a small number of TSA agents would need better trained. One reasonably competent one to triage the threats and flag people like a Saudi or Yemen national at each check point. And 1 or 2 well trained individual at each airport to question those people flagged for further investigation. Right now we are wasting a ton of money investigating non-threats. We should save that money and use it to investigate potential threats. This could not be done overnight. It would take at least a few years to have the FBI or TSA conduct the background checks to level off those wanting a pass to the express line. So we start with our most frequent travelers. But once we have everyone who takes 50 or more flights per year needing less screening we will have significantly freed up TSA resources as a small number of people represent the majority of total flying.