TSA says extra screening for those from terrorist countries?
 

Are they finally realizing what everyone else knows - that my 81 year old mother flying Boston to Miami (15 extra minutes at security) is not likely to have the same degree of risk as a single young male from Yemen? I stupidly thought they were quietly doing this already. Up until now I just put up with the nonsense of taking off my shoes, doing the hokey-pokey thru the metal detector, worrying if salad dressing for my carried snack is a liquid - but this is about pushing me over the edge. Is it that no one working for Homeland Security has half a brain or are we so worried about "profiling" that we have lost any element of sense? (Sorry - just needed to rant as I put my 19 year old on a flight to Athens)

>>no one working for Homeland Security has half a brain<<

At Denver airport, they analyzed the skin creme of my 78-year-old MIL. But I can tell you, she can be worse than a terrorist!

At Chicago airport, they interrogated my son because he had an Egyptian stamp in his passport. The interrogation (I was present) went like this:

Officer: "What have you done in Egypt?"
I: "We have made a Nile cruise."
Officer: "What is the Nile?"
I: "A river."
Officer: "Where have you been in Egypt?"
I: "We have visited the pyramids."
Officer: "What are pyramids?"
I: "Monuments. Millions of tourists visit them annually." (I thought better not to mention that pyramids were tombs.)
Officer: "Did you meet Egyptian people?"
I: "No." (I thought better not to mention our tour guide.)
Officer (to my son): "Have you been to a terrorist training camp in Egypt? Have you learnt to build bombs?"
My son: "No."

Then it was over. The total thing including waiting time lasted 90 minutes. Luckily, our layover to the connecting flight was longer than that.

The last two bombers America allowed onto US-registered planes were British and Nigerian.

The last (spectacularly incompetent) terrorist attack on a Western airport was by an Indian doctor, working in a Glasgow hospital, who drove an ordinary car at a crowd that probably included some of his own patients. The most recent mass murder in the West was by a Finnish nutcase. The most recent terrorist mass murder in the West was by a US citizen in that most suspicious of all categories - an army officer.

Precisely which country - apart from San Marino - is excluded in the phrase "from terrorist countries"?

Switzerland?

There was just a list on the news - including countries such as Cuba, Libya, Iran - and specified that it was not limited to people carrying passports of these countries but those traveling thru these places. Am I missing something? Do we have direct flights to Iran? Have all those desparate people on unsafe boats trying to float to south Florida from Cuba missed the idea of just taking Delta?

IDIOTS!

Gee, a terrorist would NEVER fly to someplace like Amersterdam BEFORE they came to the US would they?



And as for your 81 year old mother... Sorry, but that's the whole problem. The TSA assumes a TERRORIST will look like they expect. Remember that in we have had soliders killed by pregnant women who were willing to blow themselves and thier unborn up.

It's not just flying directly from those countries. If you have visited any of those 14 countries, you're in for extra scrutiny too. There was just an article in November's Conde Nast Traveler about what an intriguing place Damsacus is to visit, and I was toying with the idea of going there this year. If a Syrian stamp in my passport is going to cause me problems, though, maybe not.

I agree with Carol. The minute we start singling out "the usual suspects," terrorist organizations will start using more "American looking" mules. I have a feeling a young Arab man is already getting a lot of extra scrutiny to begin with. If randomly subjecting an 81-year-old woman to extra security keeps terrorist organizations guessing, then so be it.

"Are they finally realizing what everyone else knows - that my 81 year old mother flying Boston to Miami (15 extra minutes at security) is not likely to have the same degree of risk as a single young male from Yemen?"

Gail, they knew it all along. It's ACLU who still doesn't know that, and screams about profiling. Finally on TV they've started to talk about profiling of certain group of people boarding planes.

So the Syrian stamps in my passport are likely to cause me problems on my next trip? Maybe I should get a new passport.

<<< If you have visited any of those 14 countries, you're in for extra scrutiny too. >>>

There doesn't seem to be any time limit on it so if you visited one of those countries a decade ago then you better bend over.

It's also going to go down well in the oil industry as several of the countries mentioned are oil rich.

And if the person who has been to one of the Axis of Prostate travels to the US from some other country will that country be the ones responsible for doing the invasive searches?

And WTF is Cuba doing there? The only direct flights from the US are US government sanctioned for Americans of Cuban descent. What happens when Cuba decides not to play ball and refuses to apply the required level of intrusion - will the people have to stay in Cuba or will they be allowed to make their own boats to get back to the US.

And then there's the air crew, they'll be subject to these measures and if they work for a major airline then the chances are they'll pass through one of those countries at some point

Dayenu as Flanneruk points out, the average terrorist isn't someone with a nightie and a towel on their heads.

You can't tell people's religion by looking at them and Muslims come in all colours

So profiling by race or religion is a non-starter

I guess I did not make myself really clear on my views at 6 AM - I certainly realize that no terrorist is flying with an "I am a terrorist" tatoo and also realize that we should never exclude old ladies, babies, blonds from security. My main point was that I thought TSA was already subjecting to extra security certain situations - including method of ticket purchase, whether person had baggage, etc.

And I still wonder, only half kidding, if you parked some really nosey and perceptive people around the airport, whether informal behavioral observations would accomplish quite a bit - I have a few friends who would be willing to sit around the airport with me all day, drinking coffee, and people watching.

So if you don't have a Cuban stamp in your passport you won't be considered dangerous....

But Cuba, knowing how we feel about them, routinely does not stamp passports...

Hmm... The Thousands Standing Around have a new problem. What if I don't have a passport stamp, what if I have TWO passports, what if I have dual citizenship, and on and on and on...

There's a case on another forum of someone who was born in the Sudan - yet has never lived in the Sudan since it gained her independence - and she's a white grannie.

Gail, you’re right on!

The idea that all people present the same sort and degree of risk are the conclusions of idiots. Unfortunately, idiots on both sides of the aisle would rather see you blown to bits at 37,000 feet instead of having someone curl their lip at them.

Suppose I wanted to find an illegal alien. (I don’t fall for the PC word “undocumented”, as though I misplaced a sales receipt.) Where would be the best chance of finding one? A) The White, Black, or Asian driving a BMW on Michigan Avenue in Chicago or B) The Spanish-only speaking Latino looking for day work on Agoura Road in Agoura Hills, California? Chose carefully, because your life depends upon it!

The PC crowd says the two choices are identical. Otherwise, you are – gasp! – profiling!

Suppose you are in a strange city. It’s 2:00 am. You are hopelessly lost with no way to contact anyone or get help. A car pulls up with four young men, music blaring. They say they will help you. Another car pulls up with a man, woman, and two kids asleep in their car seats. They offer to help you too.

Who will you pick? It’s a coin toss. One choice is as equally risky as the other, right? <i>Otherwise you are guilty of the heinous crime of profiling.

My spouse and I were routinely grilled during the 11 years we lived in and regularly traveled to and from the Middle East and Indonesia. Questions like, what were you doing there, who do you work for, how long have you lived there, what is your business in the US, blah, blah, blah.

Our new passports don't have any 'suspicious' stamps, so we pretty much fly through US immigration these days, although on my last trip into SFO from Australia I was closely questioned about how much money I was bringing into the US, which seemed kind of strange.

Could someone please list the 14 countries you're referring to?

Afghanistan
Algeria
Cuba
Iran
Iraq
Lebanon
Libya
Nigeria
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Yemen

Before anyone asks, obviously, someone who served in the U.S. military in Iraq or Afghanistan isn't going to be the subject of suspicion.

If you have passport stamps from those countries, you'll get extra scrutiny, I gather.

Thanks Jeff. We've lived in Saudi, but none of the others (unless you include Libya a gazillion years ago).

Terrorists can without much extra effort defeat some of the most basic extra screenings TSA now seems to want to put in place. Stamp on your passport from a "red flag" country? Gee, how hard would it be to get a passport without one? How hard would it be to go to a third country like Germany, get fake documents showing you are a German citizen, then take a train to Amsterdam and fly to the US?

The reason terrorists haven't taken the trouble yet to do so: why SHOULD they have? So now the US is finally plugging some of the most basic security holes - the terrorists will simply have to work a bit harder.

I think we will soon have to give up a whole lot more privacy to be able to fly commercially. I don't mean extra intrusive body scans - I mean, having to be heavily screened even before you arrive at the airport, unless you want to spend extra hours getting the third degree. That is, when you show up at the airport, you'll have an ID plus perhaps have your fingerprints and eyes scanned to prove you are who you are. Immediately, TSA will know if you've had any speeding tickets, prior arrests, how long you've been at your current address, etc.. They will know if your ID has been reported stolen or if you have been reported as a missing person (so a terrorist who might have tried to steal your identity could be thwarted). They'll know by a quick check of your credit report, recent foreclosures, evictions, etc. whether you have having severe financial problems.

I'd say, for each person boarding a flight, the TSA will know the "risk factor" of every person on it. People with a high risk factor will have to endure a much higher threshold of screening - Israeli-style interviews by multiple people, body scans, etc. On the contrary, if you have voluntarily given up a lot of personal info to the TSA ahead of time, your airport experience should be relatively painless: the TSA will know you have been at your job for 5 years, that you own a home and have flown over 30 flights in the last few years for business - that is, an extremely low security risk, thus minimal screening.

Wonder why El AL airline does not have problems with bomber passengers? Maybe there is something to learn from them?

cary

<<< Who will you pick? It’s a coin toss. One choice is as equally risky as the other, right? Otherwise you are guilty of the heinous crime of profiling. >>>

In your first case the white, black or Asian could easily be illegal - and given the BMW could be involved in something even more illegal like drug or people smuggling

In your second case a terrorist isn't trying to draw attention to themselves so it's possible that the person with the wife and two kids is the terrorist.

cary999 - Israel has about 11 million people passing through it's airports in a year, an average major US airport 40 million.

Most people flying through Israeli airports are Israeli and those that aren't (or who aren't Israeli Jews) spend a lot of time getting interviewed by several people. Care to try to do that at a typical US domestic airport, let alone a major international airport. The whole system would come crashing to the ground within minutes

Jeff in Costa Rica: Your comment about military may or may not apply. My son is in the Army, currently stationed in Germany. He had served in Iraq and when he returned to Washington DC for a conference, was questioned for about 10 minutes before he was allowed to pass through passport control. "What are you doing here, etc etc", questions about as stupid as "What is the Nile." He had his passport, his military ID and his orders but was still questioned closely. He was, apparently, right on the verge of really losing his temper (and ugly thing!) when they finally sent him on.

Never overestimate the intelligence of TSA or Border Patrol or Homeland Security or whatever it is they are calling themselves today.

As for "profiling" and machines and all, take a look at what the Israelis do and their record of terrorist acts on airplanes. Basically, it is observation and interview. But the observers and interviewers are highly trained, unlike the TSA folk.

What I meant was that having served in the military in Iraq or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia will not flag you as having "traveled to Iraq or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia" in the same way it would if I had a passport stamp from one of those countries. But a military person is subject to scrutiny just like anybody else is. I think that's how it should be.

"Most people flying through Israeli airports are Israeli and those that aren't (or who aren't Israeli Jews) spend a lot of time getting interviewed by several people. Care to try to do that at a typical US domestic airport, let alone a major international airport. The whole system would come crashing to the ground within minutes

You assume each and every passenger is interviewed. No, here's how to do it.
You reassign those TSA agents now taking tooth paste from grandmothers. They interview passengers based on a -profile-, about 10%-20% of the passengers.

You do this, as does El Al, or you simply accept that a couple times a year a plane will get bombed out of the sky. Your choice.

regards - tom

Jeff-Costa Rica - If you are military serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, is your passport stamped when you arrive/leave the country?

Cary999 - I completely agree with you on this. TSA is taking the entirely wrong approach. It would not take any more time to do as the Israelis do - think about it the next time you are standing in a security line with 100 other people. It takes the same amount of time to do a little interview as it does to go through the current security procedures. I am not saying on top of current security procedures, but instead of.

Some talking head this AM referred to spending more time identifying terrorist suspects than on contraband shampoo - maybe they are finally starting to get it. Whether it be better use of intelligence information, behavioral observations, demographics - seems likely to have chance at higher success rate than x-raying my flipflops. Impossible to be 100% safe, but efforts should be on people rather than stuff.

<<< You assume each and every passenger is interviewed. >>>

They are - but "some" get longer interviews than others.

Their system assumes that Israeli Jews are unlikely to commit a terrorist act against Israel but everyone else could be. So the Israeli system only gives in-depth interviews to a small portion of the people who travel to Israel.

This cannot be expanded to other nations as the range of passengers they deal with are far wider - you can't even assume an American isn't a terrorist.

I was going to ask the same question, hsmithcr. When you are sent to war, what kind of documents are you traveling with?

I believe the guideline is that military traveling on commercial flights will have passports. Flying on military flights formal orders suffice.

Or something like that (at least there are cases where passport is not needed).

OK. My question was: do military personnel deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan have their passports stamped in Iraq or Afghanistan? If no one knows, I will ask my son and let you know.

I heard back from my son and he said when he was deployed to Iraq, he didn't use his passport but was checked into military customs in Kuwait. Don't know if it has changed now, that was about a year ago. He had to have a passport just to get on the plane - commercial flight - but it was not stamped in Iraq or Kuwait. Very few people fly on military flights these days and really don't want to since they are mostly cargo planes and not very comfortable, according to son. So it's mostly commercial.

A British newspaper reports that the full-body scanners everyone thinks will be the answer to all our problems with air terror may not work. That's right: they may not work at detecting the kind of explosives the Nigerian was carrying on his person. Now watch Congress whip itself into hysteria, mandate their use, without paying attention to any evidence to the contrary.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...m-1856175.html

Hindsight is always perfect, so the executives and politicians will always be able to dig out a piece or two of information and say that some analysts screwed up by not divining what was not their from that information. They give the impression that workers are sitting around and not doing their jobs, because they refuse to comprehend how much information comes in, and they don't want to have to kill some personal pork project to pay for more people to analyze the information.

It's easier to just pound the desk and demand that people do better, especcialy if you can find some low-level employee who was late for work, and fire him.

The hard fact is we don't select our leaders because they are good managers; we select them because they have a nice appearance and a glib manner. Then those leaders appoint people just like them to run the agencies. None of them have managerial talent or experience, and none of them are fired for inept performance unless the press and the other politicians force the issue, for whatever reason.

Take, for example, the current head of homeland security spending. She is a politician, and from what I've read has no experience in the field of national security (no experience? Some might say she hasn't a clue!)

Her initial response to the diaper bomber appears to have been to try and cover it up, or at least minimize it. She is widely quoted as having said the system worked! Belatedly, realizing how stupid that sounded, she said she meant to say that the system had worked after the bomber had been taken into custody. Yet I read an article by a commercial pilot who said that after 9/11 they had created an operations plan which included notifying all aircraft in the sky at the time of such an incident; he was miffed because he had been in flight over the Atlantic at the time of the incident, and had never been notified, and hadn't found out about the incident until he landed and saw a report on CNN. So apparently the head of homeland security was less than truthful when she said the system worked after the incident.

Now if all of this is true, how can the President look around the room and not see that a major part of the problem is right in that room. And if he can't stomach dealing with failure high in his administration, he should do the right thing.

Where did y'all get the idea that the CBP is going to be looking at passport stamps?

The only thing I've read/heard was that the enhanced screening would be applied to pax traveling from or thru those countries.

"or thru those countries" - only way to be sure about the "thru" is to look at passport stamps - some people (like me) visit multiple countries per trip. And maybe these folks are actually bright enough to figure out that some people (like me) travel overland. The countries that don't admit people who've been to Israel are certainly said to do so - if you were stamped out of Jordan at (e.g.) the Allenby Bridge they don't need an Israeli stamp (available on a separate piece of paper) to figure out that you went to Israel.

But you are speculating at how the policy will be implemented. The govt doesn't necessarily use the "only way to be sure".

It is one possible implementation, to have CBP check all the stamps in every passport. But I doubt that is what they are going to do.

Another implementation of the policy is to instruct CBP agents to do the enhanced screening if the traveler indicates that they have traveled "from or thru" those countries.

For a US citizen that could simply mean checking the entry card. There is a box on it where you list the countries you visited on this trip. If you list Afghanistan and Cuba then you get enhanced screening.

If you don't list a country then the agent might flip thru the pp looking for a recent (yesterday) stamp in one of those countries.

Ok, I admit it - i MUST be missing something here.
As far as I know, no american citizen flying within the US has ever been a threat to any airliner. Am I wrong?

As far as I know, no white male or female, holding a US passport flying back to the US, has ever been a threat to any airliner. Am I wrong?

-----

DH and I just flew back to NY from the Bahamas. The charade before boarding in Nassau was ludicrous. The system in place only serves to aggravate innocent tourists flying into the US. And no, it will not deter someone bent on destruction.

Everyone's carry-on was opened and inspected after we went through the gate. Everyone got a pat-down right in front of the 100s of others waiting to board their respective flights(about 4 planes). Two lines - because only 2 "officers" were conducting this inspection. It took more than an hour AFTER we had already been x-rayed, metal detected, checked luggage, etc.

WHY?????

So that the sheep can sleep better at night? Beyond stupid.

Not to mention the huge amount of money being wasted around the world in this "improved" security farce.

You're assuming there's no such thing as homegrown terrorism. It didn't involve an airplane, but don't forget that the worst case of terrorism on U.S. soil prior to Sept. 11 took place in Oklahoma City. Who committed that act?

I'm not assuming anything ... I'm questioning whether it makes any sense for everyone to remove shoes at US airports but not at overseas airports, for lighters to be confiscated at some airports but not others, for water bottles to be allowed beyond security checkpoints sometimes but not all the time, etc, etc, etc.

Inconsistent rules, which just point to the futility of "security". Makes those in power feel powerful. Nothing else.

Impossible to prevent everything!