Screening passengers for background and behavior is FAR more likely to achieve results. My understanding is that not only did the 9/11 attackers have alertable backgrounds, but they acted odd-- as well they should, since it is clear after the fact that they were beyond insane.

This is not to say that nitrogen sniffers, hand searching, and dogs should be abandoned. But I do agree with Carl that there are limits to how much one can hope to test for.
Wyeth | 08.18.06 - 1:24 pm | #

Thanks for your thoughts. Clearly we're in agreement here.

As I pointed out in my other article, too, we have to be cognizant of the actual statistic risks. You are much more likely to be killed driving to the airport in an automobile accident, yet we don't have standing police details on airport roads checking drivers licenses and auto equipment likely to cause an accident. Yet, we are extracting huge amounts of time and money from airline passengers to defend against what statistically is a tiny risk. Perhaps we need more statistics education as well.

Thanks for the comment!
Carl
Carl | Homepage | 08.28.06 - 10:21 am | #