The Volokh Conspiracy

The World’s Youngest Suspected Terrorist

Jonathan H. Adler • October 20, 2009 1:14 pm

Here she is. She may look harmless, but that just shows how devious and dangerous our enemies are.

Categories: Uncategorized

64 Comments

Anon says:

From the link:
“Is this really the most efficient way to handle false positives?”

And soon, this same efficient government will be in charge of your health care.

(I do note that they shifted the cost of false positives to the traveler).

(I do note that they efficiently shifted the cost of false positives to travelers.)

But they’ll get it right this time.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 1:25 pm
richard says:

And soon, this same efficient government will be in charge of your health care.

Well the government has been handling Medicare for several decades so far and has been doing a pretty good job of it — as evidence by polls showing that 90% of the elderly are very satisfied with Medicare(or would you suggest that they get out of the job of providing payments to the persons who provide medical care to the elderly?)

Quote
October 20, 2009, 1:43 pm
Muskrat says:

Maybe there’s a “do not cry” list she got put on a few years ago. Just sayin’.

Also, in that picture she looks like mischief waiting to happen. Can’t have mischief, tomfoolery, or shenanigans in today’s security state.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 1:48 pm
Ben P says:

Anon: From the link:
“Is this really the most efficient way to handle false positives?”And soon, this same efficient government will be in charge of your health care.(I do note that they shifted the cost of false positives to the traveler).
(I do note that they efficiently shifted the cost of false positives to travelers.)But they’ll get it right this time.

I’m somewhat unsure how to respond to this.

Are you arguing the Federal Government has no place in ensuring airline safety/security? I mean it’s certainly something the market could have an influence on, but the lack of available information makes the cost of figuring out which airlines would have good security and which don’t rather high. It’s difficult for people to make rational judgments on infinitesimal odds of very serious consequences.

I think everyone would agree this is a silly result, but if you look at it in terms of “how much more would the government have to pay to affirmatively seek out and eliminate false positives” it becomes an interesting question. Suppose 10% of the people on the list have a “false positive twin,” but providing bureaucrats to sort through it and identify every one of those people would increase the cost of the program by 20%, is that worth it when the gain is reducing the hassle of a couple thousand people when traveling? Sure, the government probably could have made it more easy to find an appeal form (heck, at least it’s online in the first place) and determine if they’re the cause of your problems, but that’s really a difference in extent rather than a difference in kind)

As for Healthcare, I think the same reasoning is true to any set of facts you can imagine. We can make arguments that relying on the market is the best way to ensure that the “optimum” part of GDP is appropriated to Healthcare, but arguing that people should be left to die if they can’t afford care doesn’t tend to go over that well politically. I’m sure medicare bureaucracy is a big hassle, but there’s still the valid questino of whether the potential inrease in spending to reduce the potential hassle is more or less “efficient.”

Quote
October 20, 2009, 1:51 pm
JeffH says:

richard: Well the government has been handling Medicare for several decades so far and has been doing a pretty good job of it – as evidence by polls showing that 90% of the elderly are very satisfied with Medicare(or would you suggest that they get out of the job of providing payments to the persons who provide medical care to the elderly?)

Judging Medicare by what Medicare recipients think of it is not a good measure. You may as well ask the people who are getting a free lunch if it was worth what they paid for it.

Medicare costs are growing faster than the cost of private insurance. The per person administrative costs are higher for Medicare as well. Medicare and Medicaid are the single largest driver of the increasing national deficit.

So to answer your question: Yes, that’s exactly what I’d suggest.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 2:01 pm
Houston Lawyer says:

Yes, medicare works so well that a number of my doctors won’t accept it as payment. I won’t defend the TSA. They are, however, practically prohibited from using common sense in their operations.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 2:10 pm
geokstr says:

richard: Well the government has been handling Medicare for several decades so far and has been doing a pretty good job of it – as evidence by polls showing that 90% of the elderly are very satisfied with Medicare(or would you suggest that they get out of the job of providing payments to the persons who provide medical care to the elderly?)

From MSNBC, hardly a bastion of rightwing lunacy like that evil Fox:

Law enforcement officials said it’s just one of the many widespread, organized and lucrative schemes to bilk Medicare out of an estimated $60 billion dollars a year — a staggering cost borne by American taxpayers.

Blatant Medicare fraud costs taxpayers billions

Please don’t use Medicare/Medicaid as a standard for the “efficiency” of the federal government. The only reason they get to brag about their low admin cost relative to insurance companies is that in addition to offloading a lot of costs to other branches of government that for-profits have to incur, they also spend about zero on fraud prevention, a major cost for the insurance industry. Why in the hell don’t they pass legislation right now to get all these “savings” that Obama says are there, instead of waiting for the takeover bill to pass? That’s about 10 billion they’ve lost just since August.

I suspect that the reason that seniors love Medicare so much is that it is all most of them have. After having relied on the government’s assurances for decades that it would be there for them, I’ll bet very few have put aside the resources to take care of their own health care, so of course they would be very upset if it gets cut (which it will anyway under nationalized care). Poor as it is, it is better than nothing, and the seniors could really care less about the cost shifting that is significantly raising the price of insurance and care for everyone else.

I don’t want to hijack this thread, but the planted axioms, whole cloth assertions, and outright fabrications often dropped into every thread, mainly by the left, need to be rebutted.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 2:15 pm
Ugh says:

As I suggest over there, he could, you know, use her middle name, or first initial and middle name, or some other variation, as it’s not like she’s being asked for an ID when checking in or going through security.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 2:24 pm
ChrisTS says:

Cute, sure. But note the shifty eyes and creepy symbols on the shirt.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 2:28 pm
Ben P says:

geokstr: I don’t want to hijack this thread, but the planted axioms, whole cloth assertions, and outright fabrications often dropped into every thread, mainly by the left, need to be rebutted.

I think the planted axiom is that “the left” comments here. I’m by no means liberal, and on nearly every other board I regularly read, with the possible exception of LGF, I fall into the “right” half of the commenters. Yet somehow here, I’m to the left of many commenters, or am presumed to be so because I like to play devils advocate and don’t accept certain things at face value.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 2:28 pm
TheBadness says:

All children are best treated as potential biological terrorists.

They gather on a near-daily basis, in conditions ideal for the sharing of dangerous biological agents. Moreover, they (and particularly the under-5 subset) delight in behaviors that favor transmission.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 2:33 pm
the Bruce says:

They are, however, practically prohibited from using common sense in their operations.

No truer statement has been written on the subject. (I am taking your use of “practically” in the literal sense, as opposed to the somewhat frequent used of the word as a synonym for “almost”.)

Quote
October 20, 2009, 2:41 pm
Oren says:

Let me get this straight — it’s important to check children against the list but we still don’t do the most obvious thing and scan all checked baggage for explosives?

Quote
October 20, 2009, 2:47 pm
PLR says:

JeffH: Judging Medicare by what Medicare recipients think of it is not a good measure.

Snicker.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 2:52 pm
richard says:

So to answer your question: Yes, that’s exactly what I’d suggest.

Your suggestion is to get rid of Medicare and leave the elderly to their own devices. I hope the Republican Pary adopts that as their position. It would ensure Democratic Party successes for the rest of my life.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 3:01 pm
richard says:

.
I don’t want to hijack this thread, but the planted axioms, whole cloth assertions, and outright fabrications often dropped into every thread, mainly by the left, need to be rebutted.

Hey, I’m hardly the left. I’m what could be called a fairly conversative Democrat. And I was just responding to a comment that the government would be screwing up health care in the future under the Democrat’s proposals, a comment that conveniently ignored the last thirty years of Medicare. No one will argue that Medicare is perfect but it does a damn good job in providing medical services to the elderly, is a lot better than what preceded it (which was nothing at all) and has not resulted in the prophecies of catastrophe and road to ruin which its opponents made when Medicare was being passed.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 3:07 pm
PLR says:

richard: No one will argue that Medicare is perfect but it does a damn good job in providing medical services to the elderly, is a lot better than what preceded it (which was nothing at all) and has not resulted in the prophecies of catastrophe and road to ruin which its opponents made when Medicare was being passed.

Let’s be careful here. Medicare does not provide care in the sense that the VA provides it. Medicare only cuts a check, which is all that most proponents of health care reform want.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 3:12 pm
Ex parte McCardle says:

ChrisTS: Exactly. It was the fluffy kitty cat on the smock that tipped TSA off.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 3:19 pm
Fedya says:

If they can use 92-year-olds as drug mules, why not 4-year-old terrorists?

Quote
October 20, 2009, 3:20 pm
CDU says:

Oren: Let me get this straight — it’s important to check children against the list but we still don’t do the most obvious thing and scan all checked baggage for explosives?

The TSA does scan all checked baggage.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 3:23 pm
JeffH says:

richard: Your suggestion is to get rid of Medicare and leave the elderly to their own devices. I hope the Republican Pary adopts that as their position. It would ensure Democratic Party successes for the rest of my life.

First, I’m not a republican and I don’t pretend to suggest that Republicans can or will make such a proposal. The fear mongering that Republicans have engaged in with the elderly in an effort to block Obama’s Medicare reforms are evidence enough that they don’t plan to do any more to reduce Medicare expenses than the Democrats will.

My suggestion is that we can’t continue to operate Medicare in the marvelously efficent ways that we have so far. Eventually people are going to stop buying U.S. Treasury Bonds at the ridiculous rate we’re printing them. Keep in mind that the SS and Medicare “trust funds” are invested in those Bonds also, which means that when we need those funds we’re going to be further accelerating the rate at which we’re trying to sell bonds. Eventually the rates on U.S. bonds will spike and when that happens we’re going to have to confront the federal deficit. We’re not going to do that without confronting SS and Medicare. Both parties can continue to try to make the other party the one who has to deal with it in the future, but while they try to avoid the “3rd rail”, the rest of the country is getting run over by the train.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 3:24 pm
Matthew Carberry says:

If there’s a “list” of possible threats, then those threats need to be investigated and either cleared (and thus removed from the list) or arrested for actively planning or committing a crime. The delays and impositions imposed by being on the secret “suspect” list, or merely having a similar name to someone on the list, in perpetuity are a punishment by inches and an infringement upon that individual’s privacy and freedom of (convenient at least) travel.

Most of TSA’s (visible) efforts are pure security theatre with no documented effectiveness at doing anything, for example catching forbidden objects at screening, better than the private system existing prior to 9/11. I’m sure there are some things they do well, but the security checkpoints and “no-fly list” are not among them.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 3:26 pm
Pintler says:

Is this really the most efficient way to handle false positives

There nay be an easier solution. I first learned of the no-fly list from an article in one of the Seattle papers. A fellow named, say, Fred R. Smith kept getting the treatment when he flew, which was often. He contacted a local reporter, who thought to call other Fred R. Smiths nationwide to see if they were experiencing the same problems when they flew. They were, and the reporter wrote an article inferring there must be a no-fly list (this was before the gov’t would acknowledge it).

In the closing paragraph, they asked Mr. Smith whether he was still having problems. He replied “no, I haven’t had a problem since I started booking flights as F. Ralph Smith instead of Fred R. Smith”.

The system may have been ‘upgraded’ since then; YMMV.

Probably Osama flies all the time as ‘O.B. Laden’.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 3:28 pm
Andrew J. Lazarus says:

Dick Cheney could establish her terrorist bona fides with ten seconds of waterboarding.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 3:28 pm
spudbeach says:

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the the entire concept of the “no-fly list” is unconstitutional.

Why? Well, let’s start with the right to travel, implicit in the freedom of assembly clause in the first amendment. Denying that right due to being on the no fly list is an abridgment of liberty without due process. (Getting on the list without being told? For merely a rumor? Without a chance to fight it? That’s as close to a star chamber as we have in modern America.) If a man is suspected of having aided Osama Bin Laden, let us arrest him, try him, and give him the death penalty. If we don’t have evidence, we shouldn’t stop him (and similarly named people) from traveling.

Now, onto the practicalities of it. Why should I care who is sitting next to me, if they don’t have a gun? If they have been screened for weapons, what can they do? Why is the presumption of innocence abridged in the air? Experience shown that TSA name screening process is both overinclusive and underinclusive, and hence useless. Security theater is not a good reason to keep people from traveling, just as security checkpoints on downtown streets to catch wanted pedestrians walking by are not allowed, despite how many people we could catch.

Finally, the right to anonymity is obliterated. If we have the right to say what we want without giving our identity, why should we not have the right to travel anonymously?

I recognize that courts haven’t agreed with me. All the opinions I’ve read have been based on past practices and incrementalism, along with an inability to actually face the right to travel and the right to due process. If somebody why we don’t have the right to travel anonymously or the right to due process, based on first principles, I’ll shut up. But I’m tired of the arguments from “that’s the way we’ve always done it” and “won’t somebody please think of the children.”

Quote
October 20, 2009, 3:30 pm
Ben P says:

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the the entire concept of the “no-fly list” is unconstitutional.

Why? Well, let’s start with the right to travel, implicit in the freedom of assembly clause in the first amendment. Denying that right due to being on the no fly list is an abridgment of liberty without due process. (Getting on the list without being told? For merely a rumor? Without a chance to fight it?

This actually gives rise to an interesting question I don’t know the answer to. I know from some experience with private pilots that they don’t have to go through TSA measures, and neither generally do small charters. More than once I’ve been lucky enough to be on one and basically driven right up to the airport and walked onto an aircraft.

Are TSA security measures something enforced when Airlines publically sell flights on a per-ticket basis? or is it something airlines or Airports themselves were imposed upon?

Where does the requirement that someone go through a TSA screening kick in? what’s to stop someone from operating what essentially amounts to a “guerrilla airline” and selling tickets for charter flights at small airports where there’s no screening?

Quote
October 20, 2009, 3:39 pm
PlugInMonster says:

It’s more PC crap, so as not to offend certain aggrieved groups.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 4:03 pm
Steve says:

Medicare costs are growing faster than the cost of private insurance.

This is pretty much the opposite of true. “Medicare’s per enrollee spending has grown at a rate that is 1 percentage point lower than that for private insurance over the 1970 to 2006 period.”

Quote
October 20, 2009, 4:24 pm
The World’s Youngest Suspected Terrorist « Daniel Joseph Smith says:

[...] The World’s Youngest Suspected Terrorist [...]

October 20, 2009, 4:28 pm
Pintler says:

Are TSA security measures something enforced when Airlines publically sell flights on a per-ticket basis? or is it something airlines or Airports themselves were imposed upon?

I believe it is based on the size of the plane. A couple of years ago a local entrepreneur was trying to start passenger service between Seattle and Portland, limiting his planes to smaller turboprops specifically in order to prevent the delays of screening (which make driving a lot more attractive for that short a trip).

Quote
October 20, 2009, 4:35 pm
Malvolio says:

richard: Well the government has been handling Medicare for several decades so far and has been doing a pretty good job of it – as evidence by polls showing that 90% of the elderly are very satisfied with Medicare

“The government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”
– George Bernard Shaw

Quote
October 20, 2009, 4:48 pm
ChrisTS says:

Ok. As long as we are on the TSA. What is with the 3 ounce containers in a baggie nonsense?

Surely I could concoct something dangerous with that amount of fluids and creams if I knew how and wanted to. The restrictions do nothing. That I can also carry any amount of ‘medicine’ along with my baggie of cosmetics makes it obvious that there is no security rationale.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 4:48 pm
JeffH says:

Steve: Medicare costs are growing faster than the cost of private insurance.This is pretty much the opposite of true. “Medicare’s per enrollee spending has grown at a rate that is 1 percentage point lower than that for private insurance over the 1970 to 2006 period.”

Even the study you quote doesn’t suggest that it’s the “opposite of true.” It merely says (to paraphrase) that there may be good reason to think that per capita Medicare expenses are growing faster than private expenses, but the one particular CBO study cited isn’t sufficent to make that conclusion. Other studies do support that conclusion.

Here’s one (overall cost, not per capita): http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/25_NHE_Fact_Sheet.asp
Here’s another (per capita admin costs): http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm2505.cfm

And that ignores the fact that Medicare shifts a good portion of it’s true costs off to the private sector, and that one way Medicare holds it’s administrative costs down is by skimping on fraud prevention and investigation.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 5:10 pm
TA says:

It’s that fierce animal pictured on her little vest that does it.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 5:29 pm
NickM says:

Ageist!

Nick

Quote
October 20, 2009, 5:52 pm
Oren says:

Why? Well, let’s start with the right to travel, implicit in the freedom of assembly clause in the first amendment.

You have confused the right to travel (which exists) with the right to travel by airplane (which does not exist).

Quote
October 20, 2009, 6:21 pm
Splunge says:

Surely I could concoct something dangerous with that amount of fluids and creams if I knew how and wanted to.

An interesting assertion. Let’s get numerate and see. Suppose you had 3 ounces of nitroglycerin. (You could do better with RDX, but we have to restrict ourselves to liquids.) Nitro has a heat of combustion about 1.5 MJ/mol, and a molar mass of 227 g/mol, which means your 3 ounces of nitro gets you an energy release of 560 kJ, roughly. For comparison, a round from a .45 handgun has about 0.5 kJ of energy.

It would seem the nitro will do a lot more damage than a .45, but then again, the energy of the .45 slug is concentrated in one direction, whereas the energy from the nitro detonation spreads out spherically. Let’s assume the initial explosion occurs within a volume of radius = 3 cm. Then by the time the explosive front has reached a radius of about 16 cm the energy in any one direction has fallen to roughly the energy of a .45 slug.

Let’s assume a .45 slug can penetrate the skin of an airliner, but things with significantly less energy can’t. In that case, if you detonate your 3 ounces of nitro right next to the skin of the airliner, you’ll make a hole with a diameter of roughly 1 foot (32 cm). If you explode your nitro further away, the hole will be smaller.

A one-foot hole seems fairly survivable, unless conditions are unusual. Of course, you could use your nitro to blast your way into the control cabin instead, I guess. Or tamper with the smoke detector in the lavatory.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 6:34 pm
Regolith says:

Oren: Would that not be like saying that “You’ve confused the freedom of speech from a soapbox, which exists, with the freedom of speech in an amphitheater, which does not exist.”?

Seems like if you have a freedom to do something, the method you use to go about it is generally protected as well, unless the government can show an extremely good reason to hinder it. While I believe they can show a need to provide for security screening for weapons and bombs, I don’t believe they can show the need to block people from flying without due process.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 6:41 pm
Oren says:

You could do better with RDX, but we have to restrict ourselves to liquids.

This seems like a good idea until you realize you can walk through the metal detector with 100g of RDX (more than enough to ensure a kill) with virtually no chance of detection unless they swab/puff you.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 6:51 pm
Oren says:

You’ve confused the freedom of speech from a soapbox, which exists, with the freedom of speech in an amphitheater, which does not exist.”

In fact you have neither. The government may regulate the means (but never the message) of expressive speech provided that it does so in a content neutral fashion and in a manner narrowly tailored to a government interest. See, e.g. Ward v. Rock Against Racism. Ward is particularly on point to your rhetorical jab since it specifically shoots down the claim of the right to speech in the Naumberg Acoustic Bandshell contrary to the content-neutral rules (regarding maximum amplification).

Just as freedom of speech does not include every conceivable act of expression (bullhorns on a crowded street, e.g.), so too does the right to travel not include every conceivable mode of travel. See, e.g. Gilmore v. Gonzales:

Like the plaintiff in Miller, Gilmore does not possess a fundamental right to travel by airplane even though it is the most convenient mode of travel for him. Moreover, the identification policy’s “burden” is not unreasonable. See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969) (noting the right of all citizens to be “free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement”), overruled in part on other grounds by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 670–71, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). The identification policy requires that airline passengers either present identification or be subjected to a more extensive search. The more extensive search is similar to searches that we have determined were reasonable and “consistent with a full recognition of appellant’s constitutional right to travel.” United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 912–13 (9th Cir.1973).

Quote
October 20, 2009, 7:04 pm
Splunge says:

This seems like a good idea until you realize you can walk through the metal detector with 100g of RDX (more than enough to ensure a kill) with virtually no chance of detection unless they swab/puff you.

Uh huh. Where? In your pocket? Kind of a noticeable lump. Up your ass? Maybe. But then, leaving aside the question of where you put the detonator and so forth, this is why they have the “suspected bad-guy” list — so they have some idea of who to swab.

No system is perfect, except for the politically untouchable system wherein each adult male passenger is offered a loaded .45 on boarding (to be returned on landing), but the Israelis have found from long experience that the best security comes from taking the measure of the man, the passenger, rather than the American fetish of pursuing technical means of detecting “dangerous” things and substances. Frankly, a coat hanger in the right hands is a weapon of mass destruction.

But that way lies “profiling” and related non-PC no-nos.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 7:05 pm
ChrisTS says:

Splunge:

but we have to restrict ourselves to liquids.

!) Why? They count my ‘creams’ and ‘ointments’ in the baggie — indeed, they let me carry creams and ointments if the particular checker regards them as ‘medicines.’*
2) Don’t forget, I have a baggie full of 3-ounce stuff. So, I can carry 3X whatever-a-baggie-cleverly-packed can hold of nitro.

* This really makes me crazy, by the way. One person treats my Cortaid as a medicine and waves me on; another says it is not a medicine and has to be scrunched into the baggie or tossed if it is more than 3 oz.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 7:44 pm
Oren says:

100g of semtex is about than the volume of a soda can (if I did the conversion right off the top of my head). If you think our screening is that good, well, I applaud your optimism.

Also, I see no reason why willing adult females can’t be given handguns as well. Not sure I’m keen on hearing your explanation either, although I bet I’ll know soon enough.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 7:46 pm
ChrisTS says:

P.S. On the ‘cleverly packed’ issue:

I cannot say how many times I have stood in line with sympathetic fellow tavelers and agents trying to help me pack as much as possible into the dreaded baggie.

It’s stupid. I’m sorry; that’s all there is to it.

Don’t even get me going on the barefoot humiliation.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 7:47 pm
Splunge says:

ChrisTS, you set the parameters of the question (“3 ounces of liquid”). If you want to ask a different question, bombs away, so to speak. You only get precise answers if you ask precise questions.

In any event, if I have a point other than the numerical result, interesting in its own right, it’s that you need not rely on intuition or impressions from Hollywood when wondering how dangerous 3-ounce tubes of liquid are. With ordinary high-school chemistry and math, you can calculate reasonable estimates. I have an avocational interest in reviving the moribund skill of quantitative estimation, to reduce the amount of arrant nonsense decent but nonexpert folks swallow from soi disant experts or Chicken Littles bent on infantilizing free men out of their freedom.

Oren, the standard soda can has a volume of 355 mL and Semtex does not float. Can you handle the math from here? Thanks.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 8:30 pm
gwinje says:

“I have an avocational interest in reviving the moribund skill of quantitative estimation, to reduce the amount of arrant nonsense decent but nonexpert folks swallow from soi disant experts or Chicken Littles bent on infantilizing free men out of their freedom.”

Good idea.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 8:53 pm
Kirk Parker says:

Splunge,

I hope our enemies hire you as their IED consultant.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 9:29 pm
ChrisTS says:

Splunge: I could concoct something dangerous with that amount of fluids and creams

No, Splunge, I said :

I could concoct something dangerous with that amount of fluids and creams

Is this really important?

Quote
October 20, 2009, 10:05 pm
ChrisTS says:

Splunge:

I have an avocational interest in reviving the moribund skill of quantitative estimation, to reduce the amount of arrant nonsense decent but nonexpert folks swallow from soi disant experts or Chicken Littles bent on infantilizing free men out of their freedom.

Well, good! Are you telling me that a baggie* full of 3oz containers of liquids and creams [I assume ‘creams’ includes ‘ointments’] is insufficent to do damage to an airplane?

Look, I made a complaint about TSA regulations. If you think I am mistaken in the premises of said complaint, say so. I do not get the point of snarkily responding to others’ honest comments/queries. Does it make one feel important to do so? Perhaps one could feel equally important by informing others of what one thinks one knows.

*cleverly packed.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 10:12 pm
Anonny says:

So Splurge, you’re saying 100g of Semtex would only be a bit bigger than a golf ball? I don’t think the TSA kabuki theater would catch that.

Quote
October 20, 2009, 10:34 pm
spudbeach says:

OrenYou have confused the right to travel (which exists) with the right to travel by airplane (which does not exist).

Just as freedom of speech does not include every conceivable act of expression (bullhorns on a crowded street, e.g.), so too does the right to travel not include every conceivable mode of travel. See, e.g. Gilmore v. Gonzales: . . .

I’m not so sure I like that logic. I see it as being the same logic tossed in Loving v. Virginia — “You can marry who you want, as long as they’re the same race”. By that logic, I’m free to travel to Alaska and Hawaii, as long as I feel like walking. Rights must be expansively defined, or they are not rights at all.

Gilmore v. Gonzales was wrongly decided. The judge was obviously trying very hard to come to a pre-ordained conclusion. By speaking of the “burden” of the search, he is applying a weighing test where it is not appropriate. It implies that burden is constant and determinable, when it is neither. The judge in Gilmore was working under the impression that the only burden was an extra search. It is not — the burden can be missing a flight, missing an event. Being put on the no-fly list can be (and is) entirely arbitrary, and may be the result of being a member of a disfavored group (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment number 6 or http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/what-professor-murphys-story-tells-us.html).

Even if, arguendo, a no-fly list is constitutional, the lack of due process for being put on it is troubling. Even if the right to travel does not extend to airplanes, we are still at liberty to travel by planes. Being deprived of that liberty without due process is unconstitutional. In the end, there is no justice (how can there ever be justice for the family of a murder victim?), there can only be due process. Let’s not throw that away.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:19 am
Splunge says:

Are you telling me that a baggie* full of 3oz containers of liquids and creams...is insufficent to do damage to an airplane?

No, Chris. I am suggesting a way in which you (or anyone) could make a crude but serviceable calculation that lets you answer the question yourself, instead of relying on an expert opinion.

I think you mistake the origin of my prolixity. I was not being cute; I meant what I said in my follow-up. I believe we worship expertise too much, these days, and wish to strike small blows against this aspect of the zeitgeist. There’s no reason any average intelligence adult should blindly accept the word of the TSA on whether 3 ounces of liquid are dangerous, nor that of any other person. Not when a few basic science and math tools allow you to cross-check expert opinions for yourself.

Lawyers probably think every citizen should at least read the Bill of Rights, so as not to be bamboozled by politicians, and the legal scholar may take the occasional opportunity to point out how even neophytes can at least crudely reason out the constitutionality of the deeds both actual and proposed of government. I tend to feel similarly about thermodynamics.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 4:57 am
ChrisTS says:

Splunge:

I seem to have been in a snit last night. Sorry.

My original ‘question’ was rhetorical. Of course anyone could figure out that a baggie full of 3oz containers of liquids and creams would easily hold enough material to be dangerous.

That was my point: the rule does not serve security interests.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:25 am
Einhverfr says:

Most of TSA’s (visible) efforts are pure security theatre with no documented effectiveness at doing anything, for example catching forbidden objects at screening, better than the private system existing prior to 9/11. I’m sure there are some things they do well, but the security checkpoints and “no-fly list” are not among them.

Matthew:

I think measures have varying degrees of success. It is also extremely difficult to measure effectiveness of security measures when terrorists may take years (or even decades) to plan terrorist attacks. However let me provide two points of view here.

The first is that the pressure to make America “safe” has not been built up or channelled in a rational way. Any security professional knows that the important concept is “acceptable risk.” Yet we have been pushed towards a hysteria where that acceptable risk is 0. That doesn’t work and it opens up the way for all sorts of abuses such as the no fly list (keeping us safe from the likes of Cat Stephens and Ted Kennedy). The no fly list also breaks down entirely when dealing with Muslim names because of how these names are structured. Thus the signal to noise ratio here is very, very weak. If we are to avoid this we have to establish what level of risk is acceptable and start pushing back.

The second is that the TSA has done a good job in some areas. Airport security checkpoints are run in a more courteous and professional way since they took those areas over, and personal liberty in this area has not been unduly compromised (unticketed passengers can’t go through the checkpoints, but I think this is reasonable). The risks of theft at security checkpoints have been reduced by carefully handling who can walk through the metal detectors and when, and I have found the manners of the security personnel have improved.

Really, the blame for the no-fly list and a number of other attempts to reach 0-risk without considering the impacts on citizens properly rests squarely on the Bush administration, with secondary blame resting on the Obama administration for not dismantling some of these programs (this makes Obama, IMO, Bush’s accomplice after the fact).

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:54 pm
Einhverfr says:

Annony:

Typically in checked baggage you look for detonation devices, not explosives themselves. This is because the detonation devices are much easier to detect on x-rays and without access to the baggage compartment, things can’t be assembled after check-in.

In carry-on luggage, the issues are different.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:57 pm
Einhverfr says:

ChrisTS:

I think though your criticism is part of the problem rather than the rule. The fundamental question isn’t whether the rules conceivably allow the possibility of enough material to be dangerous, but rather the question of whether letting these through constitutes an unacceptable risk.

Certainly, anyone who thinks that two or three people working together (possibly booked on different flights, even) couldn’t collaborate to bring in dangerous quantities of explosives isn’t thinking like a security professional. Heck even if you think the quantities are absolutely safe you aren’t thinking like a security professional.

The rule in place is not designed to be absolutely safe. It is designed to keep the level of risk within acceptable bounds. There is a tremendous difference there. Absolute safety is incompatible with a free society.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:03 pm
egd says:

It hasn’t been mentioned yet, but it should be.

Anyone who thinks that 4-year-olds aren’t terrorists hasn’t spent much time around 4-year-olds.

As I recall, the ban on fluids was prompted by the risk that several people would each bring on components of a two-part explosive (e.g. Kinepak). The limitation to 3 oz is based on the rationale that a single person operating alone couldn’t create sufficient damage to take down an airplane with only 3 oz of explosive.

And now I’m probably going to end up on a watch list for searching for Semtex, explosive decompression, two-part explosives, and the effect of a small explosion on an aircraft. Thanks blog comments!

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:05 pm
Matthew Carberry says:

Einhverfr,

Based on personal experience I can’t agree that the security check personnel have gotten more courteous and professional, though I would agree most do make a good effort considering the nonsense they are responsible for enforcing, but that is definitely an airport and region specific issue.

You’re spot on about the attempt to reach zero-risk. My largest complaint, on this and many other risk-involved policy issues, is that, rather than standing up and informing and educating the public and politicians that perfect safety is an impossible goal and contradictory to true efficiency and realistic safety measures, the professionals involved simply kow-tow to the nonsense and then create spurious justifications for activities that are palpably unable to achieve their stated goals of prevention and deterrence of even half-witted, semi-determined threats.

I don’t mind so much them lying to me about why they do what they do and what they can actually achieve with it, but do they have to insult my intelligence in the process?

Quote
October 21, 2009, 6:44 pm
ChrisTS says:

einhvrfr:

I take your point. Nonetheless, in this case I think whatever cost/benefit (where these include individual freedom) does not support that apparent compromise.

1. I do not believe the ‘3oz each in a baggie’ rule is based on any genuine analysis. I could be wrong, but it strikes me as something cooked up in a committee meeting.

2. Given that any one person could endanger a plane with what can be brought onboard under the current rule, I don’t think any c/b analysis would lead us to say, “Oh, well, let’s just take our chances so we don’t excessively irritate the womenfolk.’

3. We could certainly achieve a higher level of security by requiring that travelers carry no liquids/creams/ointments on board (all must be in checked luggage). This is an inconvenience for those who do not want to check any luggage, but not a terrible hardship as compared with being blown up in flight.

4. Currently, any individual agent’s determination of what counts as ‘medicine’ can completely undercut the rule.

In other words (I suspect it’s clear), I think this is just a not-well-considered response.

I do appreciate the difficulty of the task before the TSA. Still, I would like to see policies that really improve security rather than ones that appear to improve it while seriously inconveniencing people to no real end.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 7:57 pm
ChrisTS says:

egd says:

It hasn’t been mentioned yet, but it should be.
Anyone who thinks that 4-year-olds aren’t terrorists hasn’t spent much time around 4-year-olds.

But they have no cause[s]. Perhaps that makes them the most terroristic of all: destructiveness for no end whatsoever?

Quote
October 21, 2009, 8:01 pm
Einhverfr says:

ChrisTS:

1. I do not believe the ‘3oz each in a baggie’ rule is based on any genuine analysis. I could be wrong, but it strikes me as something cooked up in a committee meeting.

It is probably based on an analysis of a specific threat scenario, not a general rule of threats. Based on the circumstances surrounding the ban, I would suggest that it has to do with the amount of concentrated hydrogen peroxide necessary to make carbon/oxidiser explosives sufficient to down an airplane. Higher grade explosives might fall under different scenarios.

2. Given that any one person could endanger a plane with what can be brought onboard under the current rule, I don’t think any c/b analysis would lead us to say, “Oh, well, let’s just take our chances so we don’t excessively irritate the womenfolk.’

One actually DOES do something close to that. One defines a level of risk that is acceptable, and takes measures which are designed to reduce risk to that level with a minimum of cost (inconvenience to passengers, etc). Are there ways this rule could be easily circumvented? Absolutely. On the other hand circumventing them requires effort which provides more opportunities for detection.

3. We could certainly achieve a higher level of security by requiring that travelers carry no liquids/creams/ointments on board (all must be in checked luggage). This is an inconvenience for those who do not want to check any luggage, but not a terrible hardship as compared with being blown up in flight.

You seem to be arguing against the whole notion of acceptable risk. This notion is exactly the reason we have no-fly lists, etc.

4. Currently, any individual agent’s determination of what counts as ‘medicine’ can completely undercut the rule.

Maybe but I am not convinced. I have actually had infant formula (another exception) tested at these checkpoints. I guess they run some sort of chemical scan on at least some of the exempt products. I would bet it is looking for H2O2.

In other words (I suspect it’s clear), I think this is just a not-well-considered response.

Given time frames involved, etc. I think it probably was well considered. Whether or not it has been undercut by exceptions, etc. is a different question. Furthermore, the question of whether the whole system of controls (some of which we rarely see) works to ensure that this is a helpful measure is an area I am not really qualified to comment on simply because I don’t know what they are doing.

However, the goal of this is clear: to ensure that oxidising liquids cannot be brought through in sufficiently high quantities to improvise dangerous quantities of certain types of explosives on an airplane without making several trips through the security checkpoint. As soon as we move away from that scenario, the rule looks useless.

However, consider the following issue regarding higher-grade plastic explosives: They could be in anything. You could stuff cassette tapes for a portable cassette player with the stuff. For these types of explosives, however, detonation is more difficult, so typically security folk look for detonators. Consequently, you can’t JUST look at the quantity of explosives. The view of the whole device and what parts are easiest to detect is really what is necessary. The more complex the requirements for getting something through security simply means that the better chance law enforcement and airport security have of catching it before there is a disaster.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 8:31 pm
Einhverfr says:

Matthew:

You’re spot on about the attempt to reach zero-risk. My largest complaint, on this and many other risk-involved policy issues, is that, rather than standing up and informing and educating the public and politicians that perfect safety is an impossible goal and contradictory to true efficiency and realistic safety measures, the professionals involved simply kow-tow to the nonsense and then create spurious justifications for activities that are palpably unable to achieve their stated goals of prevention and deterrence of even half-witted, semi-determined threats.

Absolutely agreed there. As I say I see Bush and his administration as responsible for this mess, and the Obama administration as being an accomplice after the fact.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 8:33 pm
John Moore says:

Liquid explosive was used in the test for Operation Bojinka test by Yousef, which used a contact lense cleaning solution bottle of nitroglycerin, and killed a passenger. The intent was to bomb many aircraft using about 10 times as much explosive.

The “fairly advanced” Aug 2006 plot in England to blow up a dozen airliners over US cities planned to use liquid explosives and triggered the liquids ban.

One fear is the creation of explosives onboard (TATP?) by mixing liquids carried on.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 11:43 pm
Blogger Bob says:

Hi, Blogger Bob here from the TSA Blog Team. I just responded to the original post over at our blog.

http://bit.ly/2Gd05Y

Thanks,

Bob
TSA Blog Team

Quote
October 22, 2009, 5:20 pm

The World’s Youngest Suspected Terrorist

64 Comments

Anon says:

richard says:

Muskrat says:

Ben P says:

JeffH says:

Houston Lawyer says:

geokstr says:

Ugh says:

ChrisTS says:

Ben P says:

TheBadness says:

the Bruce says:

Oren says:

PLR says:

richard says:

richard says:

PLR says:

Ex parte McCardle says:

Fedya says:

CDU says:

JeffH says:

Matthew Carberry says:

Pintler says:

Andrew J. Lazarus says:

spudbeach says:

Ben P says:

PlugInMonster says:

Steve says:

The World’s Youngest Suspected Terrorist « Daniel Joseph Smith says:

Pintler says:

Malvolio says:

ChrisTS says:

JeffH says:

TA says:

NickM says:

Oren says:

Splunge says:

Regolith says:

Oren says:

Oren says:

Splunge says:

ChrisTS says:

Oren says:

ChrisTS says:

Splunge says:

gwinje says:

Kirk Parker says:

ChrisTS says:

ChrisTS says:

Anonny says:

spudbeach says:

Splunge says:

ChrisTS says:

Einhverfr says:

Einhverfr says:

Einhverfr says:

egd says:

Matthew Carberry says:

ChrisTS says:

ChrisTS says:

Einhverfr says:

Einhverfr says:

John Moore says:

Blogger Bob says:

Leave a Reply

Contact

Search

Stuff From Us

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Meta