NBC News: Pat-downs for all travelers from some nations

[heyholetsgogrant]

Pat-downs for all travelers from some nations
TSA also says all international passengers will see more random screening

NBC News
updated 40 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - All travelers flying into the U.S. from nations considered high risk will be patted down and have carry-on luggage searched under new security procedures starting Monday, the Transportation Security Administration said Sunday.

In addition, all international passengers will see enhanced random screening, which may include pat-downs, explosive detection testing (swabbing of luggage) or body scans, the TSA said.

At least seven countries are on the high risk list: Nigeria, Pakistan and Yemen due to extremist activities there, and Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria because they are listed as "state sponsors of terrorism" by the United States, NBC reported.

Politico.com said 14 countries are on the full list, including Afghanistan, Libya and Somalia. It said the complete list was not available.

Source: NBC News
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34679532/ns/us_news-airliner_attack/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, took them this long?

[skinsfan_1215]

Seems pointless. Not like every terrorist is going to come from those countries.

[Koolblue13]

If I can sneak a 5th of rum into Fed Ex, I can sneak less onto an airport.

[ACW]

No Saudi Arabia?
:bsflag:

[nonniey]

OK I can actually agree with this plan - using some common sense for once, instead of political correctness.

[Koolblue13]

Weren't the 9/11 guys here originally from Germany?

I know they were Saudis and Egyptians "originally", just that they came from Germany.

[twa]

It's a start,but expanding it to a liberal profile of previous bombers would be better.
Besides some of you younger guys might like getting feeled up;)

[Larry]

Don't have a problem with it. People crossing international borders have a decreased expectation of privacy.

And like I said about Joe Crotchbomber and those guys who Pakistan is charging: IMO, some kinds of travel simply do count as a basis for increases scrutiny. Like the Americans who flew to Pakistan. How many legitimate reasons are there for an American to fly to Pakistan unless he's a Blackwater contractor or something?

Now, will it do any good? :whoknows:

Would it really inconvenience a terrorist if he had to, say, spend a weekend in Canada and then enter the US from there? I dunno.

[Destino]

Remember the why pat down grandma when you know where the terrorists are coming from... yeah... Obama's administration did this. Continue to hate.

[Hubbs]

Don't have a problem with it. People crossing international borders have a decreased expectation of privacy.

And like I said about Joe Crotchbomber and those guys who Pakistan is charging: IMO, some kinds of travel simply do count as a basis for increases scrutiny. Like the Americans who flew to Pakistan. How many legitimate reasons are there for an American to fly to Pakistan unless he's a Blackwater contractor or something?

Family?

[#98QBKiller]

Remember the why pat down grandma when you know where the terrorists are coming from... yeah... Obama's administration did this. Continue to hate.

What?

[Special K]

I'm totally for profiling. Sorry to piss you off politically correct tailgate peeps, but, yeah, some people just need to be pat down. :D

[Corcaigh]

Targeting specific countries or ethnicities is a stupid idea - it just gives Al Qaeda a profile of the type of airplane bomber they should recruit who won't be seen as suspicious. For example:


Richard Reid was a white British guy.
The latest dude was a black African.
There are five American citizens in Pakistan whom apparently were in cahoots with the Taliban.


Good security is based on monitoring behavior, not color of skin or what it says on the cover of your passport.

And let's be clear ... TSA has a limited budget. If they are targeting specific countries or ethnicities for detailed security checks it means thay are investing less effort in looking for behaviors that are proven to be characteristic of terrorists.

[Special K]

Targeting specific countries or ethnicities is a stupid idea - it just gives Al Qaeda a profile of the type of airplane bomber they should recruit who won't be seen as suspicious. For example:


Richard Reid was a white British guy.
The latest dude was a black African.
There are five American citizens in Pakistan whom apparently were in cahoots with the Taliban.

Good security is based on monitoring behavior, not color of skin or what it says on the cover of your passport.

And let's be clear ... TSA has a limited budget. If they are targeting specific countries or ethnicities for detailed security checks it means thay are investing less effort in looking for behaviors that are proven to be characteristic of terrorists.
No doubt TSA sucks.

Richard Reid...well, he looked like someone I would have patted down. Good Lord. Again, I'm for profiling for ethnicity and behavior...most definitely.

[twa]

Corcaigh, why not profile off what we know?

True they can recruit different bombers,but it takes something from Jihad if it is women and old people being the fighters.

[Fergasun]

Like the Americans who flew to Pakistan. How many legitimate reasons are there for an American to fly to Pakistan unless he's a Blackwater contractor or something?I don't agree with this, at least not for American citizens. I guess it depends on "increased scrutiny". In my mind, this would eventually lead to spying on folks who travel to Pakistan. Do you think a judge would grant a warrant for increased surveillance solely due to traveling to Pakistan or knowing people in Pakistan (okay, I'm guessing a judge would grant a FISA warrant for such activities, as I'm sure our intelligence community would portray those "contacts" as "suspected al queda members" *sigh*). No really, from the stats it looks like 99% of FISA warrants are given approval.

[Kosher Ham]

I don't have a problem with it.

I think we should have a screening device like in the movie running man (maybe it was something else, but I know it had Arnold in it).

[Thiebear]

Well the parental controls on the giant xray machine wouldn't have caught the undiebomb.
a patdown wouldn't have caught the undybomb.

Listening to the mans father and following through on the details? would have caught the undybomb..

its not that difficult to understand.
If they are sooooooooo busy they can't forward a memo to the next person in line, get more people.
If they are still following the Gorrelick memo wall: fire them or remove any group that is still blocking the work.

[Corcaigh]

Corcaigh, why not profile off what we know?



We know what?

Cuba is on the list. The UK is not.

As London and Madrid showed, thinking that the threat will come from just those countries on the list is false.

If we dedicate limited security resources to examining every traveler that originates or passes through that list of countries it means we have fewer resources to do real security checking.

[dockeryfan]

Blanket pat downs from one nation or another will not work
The TSA mandate is to look for weapons. That won't work either.

You have to look for threats.
Unfortunately, the TSA agents are not trained to do this. They are 20 year old kids, etc. that cannot interpret behavior. They are looking for metal objects, when they should be looking at facial expressions, etc.

I flew domestic yesterday, and got the full pat down traveling with my wife. Any serious intelligence officer would not have wasted any time on us. TSA is not a serious operation. It's kindergarten cop.

[twa]

We know what?

.

The overwhelming majority are males teen to 35yr old...start there and expand on it.

I agree the list is rather foolish,especially if the UK is not on it.

Dockery is correct

[Kosher Ham]

TSA cant afford to pay the right people so they get the left overs.

[Larry]

Family?

Agreed.

I didn't say "traveling to Pakistan proves that somebody is a terrorist".

I simply think that it does justify some increased attention.

[Special K]

Well the parental controls on the giant xray machine wouldn't have caught the undiebomb.
a patdown wouldn't have caught the undybomb.

Listening to the mans father and following through on the details? would have caught the undybomb..

its not that difficult to understand.
If they are sooooooooo busy they can't forward a memo to the next person in line, get more people.
If they are still following the Gorrelick memo wall: fire them or remove any group that is still blocking the work.
This is all true. I don't understand why the father's warning was not followed up on?



Blanket pat downs from one nation or another will not work
The TSA mandate is to look for weapons. That won't work either.

You have to look for threats.
Unfortunately, the TSA agents are not trained to do this. They are 20 year old kids, etc. that cannot interpret behavior. They are looking for metal objects, when they should be looking at facial expressions, etc.

I flew domestic yesterday, and got the full pat down traveling with my wife. Any serious intelligence officer would not have wasted any time on us. TSA is not a serious operation. It's kindergarten cop. I couldn't agree more with you here. I've been saying this forever about TSA; its officers are a complete joke. Their system is a joke. Frankly, I'm shocked more attacks or attempted attacks haven't occured on our airlines.

I'm fine with profiling and directing increased scrutiny to people flying to and from certain nations, but blanket rules do not work...particularly when they are being implemented by basically untrained officers.

[DRSmith]

What I found funny was listening to some guy on the right complain about how this was just the government being more intrusive, and that those who would do the pat downs were pervs just looking to touch people.

I guess people realize war time is suppose to be harsh, this is not tv or the movies

[Destino]

I'm fine with profiling and directing increased scrutiny to people flying to and from certain nations, but blanket rules do not work...particularly when they are being implemented by basically untrained officers.The problem is that short of having a CIA/FBI office at every airport the security on site will never have top notch training in threat detection. Most of our security already comes from the intelligence organizations and that will remain the case. The only thing this changes is the perceived security in certain areas, and the effectiveness of perception changes shouldn't be downplayed. I'd be shocked if terrorists would attempt to go through mandatory pat down airports as their first choice following this change.

[twa]

Oh boy.....Anybody see the major problem with this strategy?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/air-marshal-surge-race-time/story?id=9493323

President Barack Obama has ordered a "surge" of federal air marshals to be in place by Feb.1 in what officials said was a "race against time," with other suicide bombers believed to be in the terrorist pipeline, although there is no specific imminent threat, federal officials told ABC News.

Under a preliminary plan, the officials said the already existing federal air marshal force of more than 3,200 personnel would be deployed almost exclusively to overseas flights flown by U.S. carriers.


"The United States does not have a security system; it has a system for bothering people."

Shlomo Dror, an Israeli air security expert

[DeanCollins]

I like it, how about adding $350 per ticket to travelers from those countries to pay for TSA so we don't have to. When do we get down to profiling the "religion of peace"? After all, not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists (in airports) are Muslims. So if you're born in a certain country, and or a Muslim, you get strip searched, your bags turned inside out, and pay a few hundred dollars for the privilege.

[Thiebear]

The people in Detroit were prepared to look at him in secondary inspection," a senior law enforcement official said. "The decision had been made. The [database] had picked up the State Department concern about this guy -- that this guy may have been involved with extremist elements in Yemen."

I mean come on, they were going to talk to the pieces of him that landed in Detroit...
no reason to overblow this.

[Larry]

Oh boy.....Anybody see the major problem with this strategy?

Well, I have a problem with the melodramatic language.

However, I think that if the vulnerability is "aircraft flying through US airspace, loaded with people who went through security systems that the US can't control", then this sounds like a pretty good solution.

I don't know how much good an air marshal could have done against Joe Crotchbomber. I would assume that the only way he's going to be stopped in the act is if someone who's within a few seats of him stops him. I don't think an air marshal who's sitting 5 rows away could have done much.

But it doesn't seem like a bad response. Especially since it can be implemented quickly.

[da#1skinsfan]

Targeting specific countries or ethnicities is a stupid idea - it just gives Al Qaeda a profile of the type of airplane bomber they should recruit who won't be seen as suspicious. For example:


The best thing we could ever do is keep ALL of this quiet and make it the most highly top secret info that nobody knows. I guess there is no way around it since the TSA guards have to enforce it but as you said, all this will do is ensure that Al Qaeda uses different passports next time.

[Corcaigh]

I like it, how about adding $350 per ticket to travelers from those countries to pay for TSA so we don't have to. When do we get down to profiling the "religion of peace"? After all, not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists (in airports) are Muslims. So if you're born in a certain country, and or a Muslim, you get strip searched, your bags turned inside out, and pay a few hundred dollars for the privilege.

That's a brilliant strategy.

First we tell Al Qaeda exactly what and who we're looking for.

Second we demand every one of the millions of visitors to the USA who bring us tens of billions of dollars in revenue that they must disclose their religion. For 20% of the people on the planet this will involve additional cost and intrusion. None of this will do any good because we've already told Al Qaeda exactly who and what we're looking for.

The underpants bomber was a single male travelling:
(1) WITHOUT BAGS
(2) ON A ONE WAY TICKET
(3) PAID FOR IN CASH
(4) AND WAS KNOWN TO FEDERAL AUTHORITIES AS AN EXTREMIST
(5) AND HAD BEEN DENIED A VISA BY THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES

None of these five items caused him to be stopped, but you think every Muslim should be checked as a precaution when we simply can't be bothered to implement security to catch such obvious warning flags.

Foolproof security is very hard, but basic stuff like the above, and having TSA employees watch for BEHAVIOR, (not nail clippers or over-sized shampoo bottles) will improve chances of success. The LA bomber was caught not because of skin color, religion or anything else but because the lowly employee thought he was acting 'hinky' when she asked him questions. Based on this behavior his truck was searched and explosives found. Similalrly stories have been reported on the behavior of the 9/11 attackers as they passed through the airport.

[twa]

Well, I have a problem with the melodramatic language.

However, I think that if the vulnerability is "aircraft flying through US airspace, loaded with people who went through security systems that the US can't control", then this sounds like a pretty good solution.

I don't know how much good an air marshal could have done against Joe Crotchbomber. I would assume that the only way he's going to be stopped in the act is if someone who's within a few seats of him stops him. I don't think an air marshal who's sitting 5 rows away could have done much.

But it doesn't seem like a bad response. Especially since it can be implemented quickly.

Wouldn't the manpower be better directed on the ground before the flight?
With that type of bomb there is nothing to stop it but detection(or direct intel),the measures taken to secure the cabin and the change in peoples attitudes have made the Air Marshal superfluous to a large degree.

Just something to placate the masses.

[DeanCollins]

That's a brilliant strategy.

First we tell Al Qaeda exactly what and who we're looking for.

Second we demand every one of the millions of visitors to the USA who bring us tens of billions of dollars in revenue that they must disclose their religion. For 20% of the people on the planet this will involve additional cost and intrusion. None of this will do any good because we've already told Al Qaeda exactly who and what we're looking for.

The underpants bomber was a single male travelling:
(1) WITHOUT BAGS
(2) ON A ONE WAY TICKET
(3) PAID FOR IN CASH
(4) AND WAS KNOWN TO FEDERAL AUTHORITIES AS AN EXTREMIST
(5) AND HAD BEEN DENIED A VISA BY THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES

None of these five items caused him to be stopped, but you think every Muslim should be checked as a precaution when we simply can't be bothered to implement security to catch such obvious warning flags.

Foolproof security is very hard, but basic stuff like the above, and having TSA employees watch for BEHAVIOR, (not nail clippers or over-sized shampoo bottles) will improve chances of success. The LA bomber was caught not because of skin color, religion or anything else but because the lowly employee thought he was acting 'hinky' when she asked him questions. Based on this behavior his truck was searched and explosives found. Similalrly stories have been reported on the behavior of the 9/11 attackers as they passed through the airport.

Oh, you took my post seriously :silly:. Of course it wouldn't prevent the islamic extremists form using other methods, but it would significantly burden their ability to use there natural resources (young radicalized muslim men).

[Corcaigh]

Oh, you took my post seriously :silly:. Of course it wouldn't prevent the islamic extremists form using other methods, but it would significantly burden their ability to use there natural resources (young radicalized muslim men).

I'm all for stopping radicalized Muslims and giving them a second check (and a third and a fourth and then refusing them boarding 'cause why the **** not).

But how do we spot the radicals among the billion or so other Muslims on the planet? If only it said on their passport: "Religion: Radical Muslim and so proud of it I don't mind paying DeanCollins' additional $350 security fee per flight, 'cause after all I'm saving the cost of the return ticket and any baggage fees".