What Does A Terrorist Look Like?
We just received some valuable Intel today… We now know what terrorists look like. BOLOs are being sent internationally as we speak. Terrorists wear colorful oversized clothing and have round red noses. They’ve been known to paint smiles or frowns on their faces and often wear wigs and large honking shoes.
In all seriousness…At airports all over the country, day in and day out, Transportation Security Officers hear over and over: “Do I look like a terrorist? You should be spending your time looking for the real terrorists instead of wasting time on me.”
Which got me thinking - what exactly does a terrorist look like? There’s no manual showing you what terrorists look like. We could put a Magic 8 Ball at each checkpoint lane and shake it every time a passenger comes through asking “Is this person a terrorist?” Some of the answers would really prove troublesome:
*Reply hazy, try again.
*Concentrate and ask again.
*Better not tell you now.
*Cannot predict now.
*Ask again later.
If my Magic 8 Ball idea sounds silly, it is. I used that example, because it would be just as effective as taking somebody’s word who says “I’m not a terrorist.”
In a perfect world, TSO training would include a class on what a terrorist looks like. But the fact is, terrorists look like anybody else coming through the checkpoint. All races, sexes, ages, and sizes… They can be an evil genius or dumb as a rock.
You don’t have to be taller than the sign to be a terrorist. You get the point…
I can’t count how many times I’ve heard somebody say “I don’t pose a threat.” Intelligence has shown that western acting/looking terrorists are being recruited just for that reason.
What I’m trying to say is you know you’re not a terrorist, but we don’t…and we can’t take any chances and just take your word. This is another reason why our Behavior Detection Program is so important. We focus on behaviors to flush out the possible terrorists, not appearance.
Blogger Bob
In all seriousness…At airports all over the country, day in and day out, Transportation Security Officers hear over and over: “Do I look like a terrorist? You should be spending your time looking for the real terrorists instead of wasting time on me.”
Which got me thinking - what exactly does a terrorist look like? There’s no manual showing you what terrorists look like. We could put a Magic 8 Ball at each checkpoint lane and shake it every time a passenger comes through asking “Is this person a terrorist?” Some of the answers would really prove troublesome:
*Reply hazy, try again.
*Concentrate and ask again.
*Better not tell you now.
*Cannot predict now.
*Ask again later.
If my Magic 8 Ball idea sounds silly, it is. I used that example, because it would be just as effective as taking somebody’s word who says “I’m not a terrorist.”
In a perfect world, TSO training would include a class on what a terrorist looks like. But the fact is, terrorists look like anybody else coming through the checkpoint. All races, sexes, ages, and sizes… They can be an evil genius or dumb as a rock.
You don’t have to be taller than the sign to be a terrorist. You get the point…
I can’t count how many times I’ve heard somebody say “I don’t pose a threat.” Intelligence has shown that western acting/looking terrorists are being recruited just for that reason.
What I’m trying to say is you know you’re not a terrorist, but we don’t…and we can’t take any chances and just take your word. This is another reason why our Behavior Detection Program is so important. We focus on behaviors to flush out the possible terrorists, not appearance.
Blogger Bob
EoS Blog Team
Labels: mission
posted by Bob at
11:12 PM
Subscribe in a reader
87 Comments:
C'mon, Bob, admit it: the reason why the blue-eyed great-grandmother from Minneapolis is given a hard time while four young Middle-Eastern men sail through, is not because of her knitting needles ("She might knift an Afghan!" *rimshot*). It's because the government is terrified of "racial profiling".
People who fit absolutely no terrorism profile are sometimes treated more harshly so you can really, really, prove you're not profiling.
May 2, 2009 9:00 AM
I guess I must have missed the press announcement-exactly how many terrorists, potential or otherwise, has your BDO program flushed out since it's inception?
May 2, 2009 9:53 AM
Thanks Bob, I could not have said it better myself.
I also get those questions all the time, and I dont have a better answer than that.
May 2, 2009 10:12 AM
Bob, why aren't secondary barriers required for all commercial aircraft? I believe only one airline does this. This would be a (relatively) cheap, simple, safeguard against hijacking.
May 2, 2009 10:43 AM
From the recent DHS Intel, my guess it is the person on the right. Everyone should give a second glance at anyone "on the right."
And, THAT fits with the whole Cyber Security threat that all cyber security people know very well: The threat is often from WITHIN an organization.
So, since over half of DHS employees are probably "more to the right," and since they are insiders, we need to suspect the people with the uniforms first!!
May 2, 2009 10:47 AM
Nice post Bob! I have explained this sometimes trying to get some posters to understand that we are not applying a "guilty until proven innocent approach", but that we are using a equal application approach. Thanks for the post and the link to Newsweek.
West
EOS Blog Team
May 2, 2009 11:51 AM
Now take all the parts in your post where you ask "what does a terrorist look like", and change it to say "what does a terrorist behave like". In much the same way that terrorists don't have a common look, they also don't have a common set of behaviors.
Behavior detection may work well on the hit Fox TV show "Lie to Me," but in the real world it's nothing but junk science, with no legitimate research to back it up.
I work for DHS Science and Technology Directorate, so I don't make that statement lightly. Behavior detection is junk science.
May 2, 2009 12:39 PM
TSORon writes:
I also get those questions all the time, and I don't have a better answer than that.Might I suggest something like the following?
"I'm sorry. I realize these procedures are inconvenient for everyone. Unfortunately, our procedures require that we screen everyone, regardless of [age | appearance | ethnicity | gender | whatever]. Can I help you so that we can complete this procedure faster and get you on your way?"
May 2, 2009 12:46 PM
You "know" that your Behavior Detection Program is "effective protection" against terrorists. But we don't.... and we can't take any chances and just take the TSA's word, no matter how often they repeat it. We focus on objective measures of effectiveness, not the appearance of security theatre.
But just what are those measures of effectiveness? How can we know that the Behavior Detection Program is any more effective than a Magic 8 Ball? We all know the TSA's answer to that question: "Trust us."
Since I have seen no press reports (or blog posts here) crowing about BDOs stopping any terrorist plots, I have to assume that every BDO "success" reported here or in TSA published metrics has been a false positive. By that I mean the incidental detection of drugs, cash, fake military jackets, T-shirts criticizing the TSA, or other items that are illegal, immoral, or offensive but pose no actual threat to aviation.
But how many BDO "alarms" have have been negative? In other words, how many innocent travelers have been interrogated or otherwise subjected to stressful "encounters" with BDOs and then let go, without finding as much as a Reefer or even enough cash to be worth calling in the police?
That's the sort of information we need to evaluate the effectiveness of the Behavior Detection Program. But if the TSA does compile that information, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it's classified, or at least SSI. Publicizing information about the actual effectiveness and value of the Behavior Detection Program would obviously cause severe damage to national security, especially if it shows that the program is no better than the Magic 8 Ball.
Since that important information is unavailable, we're left with taking the TSA's word for its effectiveness. Since they don't take our word for anything, why should we have any reason to accept theirs? So I can only conclude that the Behavior Detection Program is nothing more than the latest addition to the TSA's Security Theatre script.
May 2, 2009 1:16 PM
TSORon: "I also get those questions all the time, and I dont have a better answer than that."
Of course you don't. Bob is a highly-skilled PR professional who is an acknowledged expert at crafting highly detailed, appropriately humorous non-answers that boil down to some variant of "... because we said so" or "trust us." You'd do best to leave the spin to the professionals, and stick to "Do you want to fly today?"
West: "I have explained this sometimes trying to get some posters to understand that we are not applying a "guilty until proven innocent approach", but that we are using a equal application approach."
In other words, "EVERYONE's guilty until proven innocent. Now bend over!"
May 2, 2009 1:23 PM
So instead, you look at everyone as being an unindicted terrorist wannabe? Classy when you've managed to bypass the courts and convict(in your mind) every passenger.
Disgusting behavior on the part of an out of control agency.
May 2, 2009 1:57 PM
You are right Jim
May 2, 2009 2:21 PM
"This is another reason why our Behavior Detection Program is so important. We focus on behaviors to flush out the possible terrorists, not appearance."
Bob, you forgot to mention that your BDOs don't find much of anything other than false positives.
You also forgot to mention that TSA has never, ever, ever caught a single terrorist.
Were you being dishonest or disingenuous, I wonder?
May 2, 2009 3:56 PM
Jim Huggins wrote...
"Might I suggest something like the following?"
I didnt say I dont have one, I just dont have a better one. Yours is nice, but not better.
May 2, 2009 4:41 PM
I recall watching in amusement as TSA instructed a fellow wearing a NAVY SEAL t-shirt to take off his shoes for screening. Seemed kinda funny to be searching him for weapons when his shirt declared "I am a deadly weapon".
May 2, 2009 4:57 PM
Jim Huggins wrote - "I'm sorry. I realize these procedures are inconvenient for everyone. Unfortunately, our procedures require that we screen everyone, regardless of [age | appearance | ethnicity | gender | whatever]. Can I help you so that we can complete this procedure faster and get you on your way?"
I agree that this would be outstanding! I also know that not everyone has the same attitude as myself or you. I would even settle for someone asking:
"Sir/Ma'am, all passengers are screened the same way"
"Is there something that we can help you with?"
That is professional and courteous and should be able to garner a response that allows the TSO to help or finish the screening. I will not apologize for following the rules and regulations, but I will help someone that needs it and offer help freely.
West
EOS Blog Team
May 2, 2009 5:35 PM
Not wanting to take the thread off topic, but you mentioned in passing at the end of your post, Bob, that somehow this discussion related to Behavior Detection Program.
That program is going out of business. TSA managers recognize it as a waste of resources, capable only of capturing druggies, doing nothing to enhance security.
How many genuine, immediate threats to aviation have been thwarted by BDOs?
May 2, 2009 5:45 PM
Well we may not know what a terrorist looks like but it seems we know what they do not look like.
They do not look like any of the 10's of millions of people who have flown commercially since 9/11.
If I'm wrong then please point to a terrorist that TSA has identified.
May 2, 2009 6:33 PM
RB,
To apply your logic elsewhere, my local fire station didn't respond to any fires last year. I guess that means it was a total waste of time and resources to have a fire department. We should shut them down because they can't point to a single fire they put out.
They got side tracked by some car accidents and things but they should stick to "their real mission" of putting out fires and stop that "mission creep."
May 2, 2009 7:36 PM
A post a few ahead of mine claims that TSA's BDO program is "going out of business". That may be what you're wishing for, for whatever reason, but it is the furthest thing from the truth.
First off, I can see that you are not "in the know", since you claimed that "managers" see it as a waste. Managers do not have the capability to implement or eliminate programs. In fact, a number of managers at each airport are assigned as the heads of programs, including behavior detection. It is management (FSDs, AFSDs, etc.), not managers, that determine what programs are implemented.
I thought it was interesting that you worded it as if it were fact. I'm not sure where you got this information from, but the BDO program is anything but done. In fact, it is continuing to grow in numbers. More will be seen from this program in the future, and it will continue to expand.
May 2, 2009 8:35 PM
Ryan62 said...
RB,
To apply your logic elsewhere, my local fire station didn't respond to any fires last year.
.......................
Well done to your community.
What I'm getting at is that TSA screens people that ride on the planes and it does not matter if a person is a terrorist or not if they cannot take aboard any weapons or such materials.
At the same time TSA does not screen its people nor other airport workers 100% of the time and they do not do 100% screening of cargo loaded onto the airplanes.
So tell me Ryan, what is the most likely method to get any type of weapon on an aircraft?
If I lock the front door to my house all the time but leave the backdoor standing wide open how good is my home security plan?
That is your TSA's idea of security!
The whole thing is just a show for the kettles!
May 2, 2009 10:00 PM
Some other Anonymous sez:
I thought it was interesting that you worded it as if it were fact. I'm not sure where you got this information from, but the BDO program is anything but done. In fact, it is continuing to grow in numbers. More will be seen from this program in the future, and it will continue to expand.
Well, Mr. Anonymous (do you work for TSA?)--let's meet here in 18 months and see who's right and who's wrong, shall we? Behavior Detection Program is dead meat.
May 2, 2009 11:12 PM
I don't know what it is that bothers me so much about this post, but I really don't like the whole "you're guilty until proven innocent" vibe I'm getting from his post. This is a nation where you're innocent until proven guilty. TSA's job is to screen us for explosives, guns, and other dangerous items. Leave the determination of who's a terrorist and who isn't to the FBI, CIA, and other agencies who know what they're doing.
In America, you're not supposed to have to prove that you're not guilty in the first place. That's what probable cause is for. Blogger Bob claims that he doesn't know if we're a terrorist or not. Why does it matter? As long as you don't have any explosives, guns, or other dangerous items on you, then you're deemed safe to be on an aircraft.
I don't see why TSA is even posting this in the first place. Again, their responsibility is to screen us for the following mentioned above, and they're not FBI.
May 3, 2009 12:13 AM
Well, that was wonderfully insulting.
And you know it is insulting and pedantic if TSORon agrees with it.
May 3, 2009 12:29 AM
Thank you for finally posting this! I can't tell you how many times I have to explain this, not only to passengers and airline employees, but also to friends and family.
May 3, 2009 2:25 AM
GSOLTSO said...
Nice post Bob! I have explained this sometimes trying to get some posters to understand that we are not applying a "guilty until proven innocent approach", but that we are using a equal application approach. Thanks for the post and the link to Newsweek.
West
EOS Blog Team
*************
An "equal application approach"??!! In other words guilty until proven innocent. This is the same double speak that the TSA uses when it claims it does not confiscate anything, instead passengers "voluntarily surrender" their items.
You can
May 3, 2009 9:02 AM
RB said...
Well done to your community.
What I'm getting at is that TSA screens people that ride on the planes and it does not matter if a person is a terrorist or not if they cannot take aboard any weapons or such materials.
At the same time TSA does not screen its people nor other airport workers 100% of the time and they do not do 100% screening of cargo loaded onto the airplanes.
So tell me Ryan, what is the most likely method to get any type of weapon on an aircraft?
If I lock the front door to my house all the time but leave the backdoor standing wide open how good is my home security plan?
That is your TSA's idea of security!
The whole thing is just a show for the kettles!
---------------------
Hello again RB
Just thought I would clarify something for you. TSA catches terrorists all the time, they just don't go to jail. They are denied access to their flight and sent away from the airport after it has been determined they don't have anything dangerous on them. Terrorists are actually pretty smart. What they do is take all the parts of an IED through security except the explosives. We notice that they are hiding these items and realize why they are doing it. They test our checkpoints but we are not allowed to hold them or arrest them because they aren't doing anything illegal. All we can do is deny them their flight privelages and the TSOC watches their movements for awhile. Also TSA would love to screen cargo. I belive but am not sure that TSI's are doing this at the moment with explosive detection dogs. We just got a team of 3 canines in juneau this year.
May 3, 2009 10:58 AM
I can't give a general description of a terrorist, but more and more seem to work for government agencies.
May 3, 2009 11:41 AM
"60 Minutes asked TSA if any of the 180,000 passengers stopped by the behavior officers for an interview turned out to be a terrorist. They wouldn't tell us, but congressional sources said no."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/18/60minutes/main4675524_page2.shtml
May 3, 2009 11:45 AM
Anon sez - "An "equal application approach"??!! In other words guilty until proven innocent. This is the same double speak that the TSA uses when it claims it does not confiscate anything, instead passengers "voluntarily surrender" their items."
It is not double speak, it is plainly written. Just because the answer is not what you want, doesn't change the fact that AN answer is there. You are not guilty of anything when you walk into the checkpoint except wanting to fly. When something that could be a threat is found, then the situation changes. I don't think of anyone as being guilty unless they do something wrong willfully. If you bring an item that is prohibited, you may be guilty of nothing more than misunderstanding the rules or something equally mundane. On the other hand, it could be a test to see what the person can get away with on a redgular basis. That is the reasoning for the equal application approach. What a lot of posters here are asking the organization to do is make an assumption that certain groups of people are not a threat, and that is just not effective and as I have posted before it is illegal (look up the definition of profiling). We perform screening the same on all because we want to insure the safety of all, not because (as a lot of you wrongly state) because you are guilty until proven innocent.
West
EOS Blog Team
May 3, 2009 12:58 PM
Thanks for the post and the link to Newsweek.
May 3, 2009 2:48 PM
Why would any TSO or BDO recognize a terrorist, none of you have ever encountered one. After billions of false positives, however, and annoying countless innocent travelers, you do keep trying.
May 3, 2009 5:02 PM
Right on TyX. Last year, I was a "terrorist supporter". This year, I am a "right-wing extremist." Net result: I am still barred from flying commercial aircraft for political reasons. Said political reasons supposedly protected by the First Amendment but in reality used as a justification for suppression.
May 3, 2009 5:49 PM
Oh, Andy, you are such a babe in the woods. The Bill of Rights is a dead letter and the Constitution is rapidly getting there. TSA has no respect for either: Just look at the no-fly list, which doesn't have a single living terrorist on it, but a whole lot of people who either are members of the loyal opposition or in one case a reporter who exposed DHS for what it is.
And if you think it will get better under The Chosen One, you've got another think coming.
May 3, 2009 5:53 PM
How much has TSO spent on BDO training? How many hours of training are required to become a BDO? Is the science behind the BDO program peer-reviewed?
None of these questions should be difficult to answer.
May 3, 2009 7:31 PM
If you claim that anyone can be a terrorist, doesn't that mean one of your employees could be a terrorist in disguise?
May 3, 2009 7:37 PM
GSOLTSO Said: "...that we are not applying a "guilty until proven innocent approach", but that we are using a equal application approach."Yea, so did Hitler. He didn't hate one Jewish person more than the next, he used an equal application approach. The only difference here is that the "Jewish people" (passengers) aren't one group, they're every group!
May 3, 2009 9:00 PM
"A post a few ahead of mine claims that TSA's BDO program is "going out of business". That may be what you're wishing for, for whatever reason, but it is the furthest thing from the truth."
Sorry, sources closer to the inside than you are say that it is so.
May 4, 2009 7:36 AM
GSOLTSO wrote ...
(well, a lot of nice things about what I previously wrote, which I won't repeat for the sake of modesty)
And then he wrote:
I will not apologize for following the rules and regulations, but I will help someone that needs it and offer help freely.
If I may make a small suggestion? I think it's perfectly appropriate to apologize for the inconvenience of the rules, while not apologizing for following those rules. It is a small distinction, to be sure. But, like my original suggestion, it helps to lessen any tension that sometimes arises at the checkpoint.
May 4, 2009 9:50 AM
Reading chicken entrails replaced the highly (un)successful BDO program. In double blind studies reading chicken entrails had a 200% improvement in detection over BDO operatives.
May 4, 2009 9:51 AM
"And if you think it will get better under The Chosen One, you've got another think coming."
Oh, you would like to believe that, wouldn't you?
Progress is incremental. Our current President will probably choose several new Supreme Court Justices, and that in of itself will have a lasting effect on our nation. The fact that he was elected shows that there is an increasing movement towards the acceptance of racial and religious diversity. A preponderance of people in our country now accept the concept of gay marriage. I am happy to disagree with your bleak vision of the future.
May 4, 2009 10:01 AM
TSOWilliamReed said...
RB said...
Well done to your community.
What I'm getting at is that TSA screens people that ride on the planes and it does not matter if a person is a terrorist or not if they cannot take aboard any weapons or such materials.
At the same time TSA does not screen its people nor other airport workers 100% of the time and they do not do 100% screening of cargo loaded onto the airplanes.
So tell me Ryan, what is the most likely method to get any type of weapon on an aircraft?
If I lock the front door to my house all the time but leave the backdoor standing wide open how good is my home security plan?
That is your TSA's idea of security!
The whole thing is just a show for the kettles!
---------------------
Hello again RB
Just thought I would clarify something for you. TSA catches terrorists all the time, they just don't go to jail. They are denied access to their flight and sent away from the airport after it has been determined they don't have anything dangerous on them. Terrorists are actually pretty smart. What they do is take all the parts of an IED through security except the explosives. We notice that they are hiding these items and realize why they are doing it. They test our checkpoints but we are not allowed to hold them or arrest them because they aren't doing anything illegal. All we can do is deny them their flight privelages and the TSOC watches their movements for awhile. Also TSA would love to screen cargo. I belive but am not sure that TSI's are doing this at the moment with explosive detection dogs. We just got a team of 3 canines in juneau this year.
May 3, 2009 10:58 AM
.............................
So a TSO will refer a person to LEO's for having $4700 but not for having a suspected component of an IED?
A TSO will refer to LEO a person who has a false ID but not for having a suspected compnent of an IED?
And are you also claiming that 100% of cargo loaded onto commercial aircraft is inspected by some arm of TSA as mandated by congress?
May 4, 2009 10:17 AM
Clark sez - "."Yea, so did Hitler. He didn't hate one Jewish person more than the next, he used an equal application approach. The only difference here is that the "Jewish people" (passengers) aren't one group, they're every group!"
Let me get this straight, you are comparing this organization to the Hitler regime, simply because we are applying the rules equally to everyone? That is kind of a reach, like stretcho reach from the Fantastic Four. The organization does not detain, arrest of physically accost anyone, and I believe if you paid attention, we would be more like Hitler's people if we were to do what a lot of the posters on here want us to do by excluding the elderly and children. That would be selecting one group of people to be scrutinized and held to a different standard than the rest of the people. That is part of the reason that Hitler was able to move upward so effectively, he snowed people into thinking that as long as one group of people were being persecuted, then MY group should be ok. The problem with that type of thinking is that after he runs out of other groups to persecute, there is only YOUR group left. All need to be subject to the same set of rules and regulations regardless of appearance, dress, preferences, age, shoe type, car keys, political affiliation or any other definable characteristic.
West
EOS Blog Team
May 4, 2009 10:35 AM
OMG!
"Just thought I would clarify something for you. TSA catches terrorists all the time, they just don't go to jail.Do you truly believe this?
May 4, 2009 10:45 AM
Tell us again why all airport employees shouldn't be screened each time they enter the SIDA area?
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/tv/stories/wfaa090501_wz_mechanics2.e837aa8.html
Don't get me wrong - I understand the need for airport security. But, having worked in operations and seen more than just the checkpoints and baggage rooms, I have seen so many holes in security, it made my head spin. But as long as the TSA is protecting our aircraft from Diet Pepsi and breast milk, then YAY for the USA!
All the while, the gangs at the commuter terminal are trading weapons and drugs are passing back and forth at the international terminal. But again, we are safe from deodorant and shampoo! YAY!
May 4, 2009 11:07 AM
"Just thought I would clarify something for you. TSA catches terrorists all the time, they just don't go to jail. They are denied access to their flight and sent away from the airport after it has been determined they don't have anything dangerous on them. Terrorists are actually pretty smart. What they do is take all the parts of an IED through security except the explosives. We notice that they are hiding these items and realize why they are doing it. They test our checkpoints but we are not allowed to hold them or arrest them because they aren't doing anything illegal. All we can do is deny them their flight privelages and the TSOC watches their movements for awhile."
Yeah, right...
A bit of fluffy sensationalism on your part, probably just about anything can be used as the non-explosive part of an IED.
Lets start a list-
a paper clip, headphone cable, any type of watch, clock or cellphone, the elastic from underwear, a pill bottle, plastic or cardboard box, tupperware, the list of seemingly harmless items is endless....
why don't you just ask:
"Do you have ANYTHING in your bag that can not possibly be used to make an IED?"
So everyone can be counted as guilty, right....
May 4, 2009 11:17 AM
TSOWilliamReed wrote:
"Just thought I would clarify something for you. TSA catches terrorists all the time, they just don't go to jail. They are denied access to their flight and sent away from the airport after it has been determined they don't have anything dangerous on them. Terrorists are actually pretty smart. What they do is take all the parts of an IED through security except the explosives. We notice that they are hiding these items and realize why they are doing it. They test our checkpoints but we are not allowed to hold them or arrest them because they aren't doing anything illegal. All we can do is deny them their flight privelages and the TSOC watches their movements for awhile. Also TSA would love to screen cargo. I belive but am not sure that TSI's are doing this at the moment with explosive detection dogs. We just got a team of 3 canines in juneau this year."
There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin.
Do you truly believe that terrorists are caught all the time, William? Why? Can you show us proof?
"we are not allowed to hold them or arrest them because they aren't doing anything illegal."
The TSA can't "hold" or "arrest" anybody, William. You are not law enforcement. Neither can you determine that someone is doing something illegal.
"...TSOC watches their movements for awhile"
And just how do they do that?
May 4, 2009 11:19 AM
Just thought I would clarify something for you. TSA catches terrorists all the time, they just don't go to jail. They are denied access to their flight and sent away from the airport after it has been determined they don't have anything dangerous on them.This is exactly why people think the TSA is security theater.
If you are a terrorist on the no-fly list and have done nothing illegal, you get sent away to try again.
If you are an innocent citizen who is not on the no-fly list and has $4700 on your person when you go through airport security (which is not illegal), you are detained and questioned.
May 4, 2009 11:20 AM
TSO Reed said...
Just thought I would clarify something for you. TSA catches terrorists all the time, they just don't go to jail.This ofcoarse is all speculation by TSA employees. You can't prove your statement.
-James
May 4, 2009 11:30 AM
GSOLTSO Said
It is not double speak, it is plainly written. Just because the answer is not what you want, doesn't change the fact that AN answer is there.
**********
This article was very clear and the single statement by Bob sums it up; “What I’m trying to say is you know you’re not a terrorist, but we don’t…and we can’t take any chances and just take your word.” In other words we assume that everyone may be a terrorist until they have been cleared through a TSA checkpoint. If this had been written as “You are not guilty of anything when you walk into the checkpoint except wanting to fly. When something that could be a threat is found, then the situation changes.” that would have said innocent until proven guilty. Bob’s statement, along with the rest of the post, says guilty until proven innocent because we have no way of knowing what a terrorist looks like and we have to check everyone to make sure.
No matter how much you spin it, the official TSA article says we assume you’re a terrorist until we can prove otherwise. Just because you think you are doing things differently at your checkpoint doesn’t change how the policy works.
May 4, 2009 11:38 AM
Just thought I would clarify something for you. TSA catches terrorists all the time, they just don't go to jail. They are denied access to their flight and sent away from the airport after it has been determined they don't have anything dangerous on them.
.......................
How sporting to play catch and release with terrorist.
May 4, 2009 11:39 AM
TSOWilliamReed: "TSA catches terrorists all the time, they just don't go to jail. They are denied access to their flight and sent away from the airport after it has been determined they don't have anything dangerous on them."
If these people "don't have anything dangerous on them," on what basis can you possibly identify them as "terrorists"? What I think you really mean is that you often find people who are on the "no-fly" watch list (or people whose name is the same or similar to those on the list) and dutifully follow your orders to "send them away from the airport."
As you're surely well aware, these lists are even more of a shameful fiasco than the War on Liquids, the Shoe Circus, and the BDO false positives. Some of the names on the list might indeed belong to "terrorists," but too many of them are there because of dodgy "intelligence," because agencies apparently are encouraged to expand the list by some secret monthly quota, or for no reason at all. Other than perhaps compiling some "terrorist interdiction" metric on some classified PowerPoint chart, it's just another kind of security theater that does nothing but abolish the right to travel for thousands of people who aren't "terrorists" but have inexplicably (and irrevocably) ended up on the list.
Are you truly proud of your role in implementing a Kafkaesque system that arbitrarily brands thousands of people too dangerous to fly but not dangerous enough to be arrested and detained even under the Patriot Act? That shameful travesty is just one more reason to despise and distrust the TSA.
May 4, 2009 12:13 PM
West,
Until the TSA gives out receipts for voluntarily confiscated items and allows reclamation of said items at a later date, it is doublespeak. You know it. I know it. The company line requires you to say otherwise.
"Just following orders" didn't work at Nurembert. Do you expect it to work here?
May 4, 2009 12:57 PM
The sad, frustrating, stupid and wasteful part of TSA is that even when they know someone isn't a terrorist they still screw with them.
When I was active duty military, travelling in uniform on orders, I had a TS/SCI clearance (probably knew more about terrorists than TSA too) and they still ran me thru all the crap. Take off the combat boots, empty the pockets, etc.
What a waste of resources. TSA needs to go away.
May 4, 2009 1:11 PM
From today's www.tsa.gov home page --
LATEST NEWS:
Man Tries to Board Plane with Cocaine Hidden on Legs (OCRegister.com)
Oops -- 2 months old, but in TSA land, this is still the top "Latest News" story?
Doesn't your organization have something better to go with yet, or is your homepage really the Old News Archive page?
Let's call a spade a spade. TSA finally got a news story justifying why they search old ladies in wheelchairs, and wants to keep it on the front page. This isn’t news, this is FAQ material.
May 4, 2009 3:21 PM
Behavior detection may work well on the hit Fox TV show "Lie to Me," but in the real world it's nothing but junk science, with no legitimate research to back it up.
I work for DHS Science and Technology Directorate, so I don't make that statement lightly. Behavior detection is junk science.
___________________________________
Well you may work for DHS, but if you are not a BDO than I am not too sure of how educated you are on the position. And without the education that the BDO is given I would believe that one would not understand what it is that goes into being a Behavioral Detection Officer. So thank you for your opinion.
May 4, 2009 4:48 PM
"I'm sorry. I realize these procedures are inconvenient for everyone. Unfortunately, our procedures require that we screen everyone, regardless of [age | appearance | ethnicity | gender | whatever]. Can I help you so that we can complete this procedure faster and get you on your way?"
___________________________________
This is pretty good Jim. Maybe you could apply for the position since you are so understanding. The only thing that is not correct is the apology. I have been told not to apologise to the passengers. We are doing our job and there is nothing to apologise for. This is not an inconvenience it is simply security. Something that we are not sorry for, but work hard to do correctly and get you on your way.
May 4, 2009 4:52 PM
Thank you for pointing out the complete inanity of verifying "identity" as a credential for "identified people are not terrorists".
Brilliant that you've actually argued against proving people against a list. Nice job.
Bob (Not a TSOBob or anything like that).
May 4, 2009 6:24 PM
"I work for DHS Science and Technology Directorate, so I don't make that statement lightly. Behavior detection is junk science."I agree, but why don't you be part of the solution? Certainly you can use your influence to effectively change a bogus TSA program.
BDOs go through a couple days of training and are somehow experts on human phychology? Nothing but smoke and mirrors.
May 5, 2009 2:17 AM
Great post! I completely agree with you, many people judge by appearance rather than by behavior. If we fix this skrewed philosophy we might be able to stop more crime.
May 5, 2009 2:48 AM
Andy said "Leave the determination of who's a terrorist and who isn't to the FBI, CIA, and other agencies who know what they're doing"
Hahahahahahahaha - that would be the CIA and FBI that did such a great job of preventing 9/11 right?
May 5, 2009 12:31 PM
Jim Huggins Wrote:
If I may make a small suggestion? I think it's perfectly appropriate to apologize for the inconvenience of the rules, while not apologizing for following those rules. It is a small distinction, to be sure. But, like my original suggestion, it helps to lessen any tension that sometimes arises at the checkpoint.
My Reply:
I agree. You can apologize (even though its not your fault) for any inconveniences. NRT (Narita Airport, Japan) security are very friendly, yet strict with the rules. My mom got caught with liquids over 3oz, and the security was apologetic that she can't bring it in the plane. They offered the best solution to check it in. They helped my mom with the items, escorted her back to the check-in area, and helped her check-in the items. Very nice! I am pretty sure there are US airports that do that as well.
May 5, 2009 6:15 PM
The BDO program is a waste of money and man power. They stand around and do nothing while lines build up because there is no one to check backs for water bottles. Biggest mistake made by TSA.
May 5, 2009 11:25 PM
FYI - I'm wrapped up in a conference all week. I'll jump in and moderate soon. Sorry for the delay...
Bob
EoS Blog Team
May 5, 2009 11:45 PM
FYI - I'm wrapped up in a conference all week. I'll jump in and moderate soon. Sorry for the delay...
Bob
EoS Blog Team
-------------
Refreshing your training on how to simultaneously scan for tiny movements and twitches in the face and discount the infinite layers of warring subconscious factors (i.e. the drive to profile vs. the drive to avoid profiling) i.e. stopping obviously nervous folks to see if they have weed? Four whole days wasn't enough?
May 6, 2009 2:33 AM
when asked what does a terrorist look like i always see the American stereotype of a black male with a turban wearing a white robe. or it that just me
May 6, 2009 6:50 AM
I am sure Government agencies are doing what ever it takes to find out who the real terrorist is. Because of these measures there are no more attacks like 9/11. One shouldn't question "do I look like a terrorist". Because terrorists try to behave like normal safe people. I think everyone should co-operate with airport authorities rather than questioning them.
May 6, 2009 9:34 AM
Bob said...
FYI - I'm wrapped up in a conference all week. I'll jump in and moderate soon. Sorry for the delay...
Bob
EoS Blog Team
May 5, 2009 11:45 PM
...................
I hope ya'll are discussing just why TSA cannot drum up any significant support from the public.
Perhaps it's time to look inward.
May 6, 2009 9:50 AM
Still waiting for a coherent explanation as to how you expect us to believe that you can train a reliable human lie detector in 4 days.
May 6, 2009 1:03 PM
FYI - I'm wrapped up in a conference all week. I'll jump in and moderate soon. Sorry for the delay...
Bob
EoS Blog Team
-----------
Why did you post an inflammatory thread if you're at a conference all week?
May 6, 2009 1:08 PM
Anonymous said..
"I recall watching in amusement as TSA instructed a fellow wearing a NAVY SEAL t-shirt to take off his shoes for screening. Seemed kinda funny to be searching him for weapons when his shirt declared "I am a deadly weapon".
Right, because a t-shirt saying NAVY SEAL on it must mean that he is indeed a SEAL and therefore should not be screened like everyone else. Apparently you can't by FBI, DEA, CIA, or any other government agency shirt as a civilian - oh wait, yes you can. Just like I can't buy or wear someone else's military BDU's or the t-shirt of someone who really is a Navy SEAL. Your assessment that by wearing a shirt the claimed he was a SEAL made it ridiculous for him to be screened proves Bob's point. You can not make assumptions on potential behaviors solely on appearance. Just because someone looks like they are Pakistani, Saudi, Iraqi, etc does not make them more likely to be a terrorist and just because someone looks like Average Joe American does not mean that they can not be a terrorist. And unfortunately, disabled people, children, and the elderly are sometimes as mules by people with bad intentions.
Terrorists do not walk around with t-shirts that say "I am a terrorist" on them and they will do everything they can to blend in with the population where they are trying to commit terror acts.
It is a depressing reality, but reality nonetheless.
May 6, 2009 1:23 PM
Bob said...
FYI - I'm wrapped up in a conference all week. I'll jump in and moderate soon. Sorry for the delay...
Bob
EoS Blog Team
May 5, 2009 11:45 PM
......................
So Bob, are you the only one authorized to moderate the blog?
What happened to Lynn, Nico and Paul?
May 6, 2009 1:28 PM
TSOWilliamReed:
* Is it unlawful to photograph, film, or video record computer monitors at TSA checkpoints?
* Under what circumstances are passengers who wish to carry medication through a TSA airport checkpoint required to carry a doctor's prescription for that medication? Under what circumstances must passengers present that prescription?
* How does the No-Fly List process comply with the Constitutional protections against trial in absentia, the right to confront one's accuser, the right to a statement of the charges, and the right of due process?
* TSA bars passengers from securing their checked luggage in a manner that prevents TSA and others from opening that luggage. How does TSA ensure that items are not stolen from checked luggage after it is out of passengers' sight? How does TSA ensure that contraband is not inserted into checked luggage after it is out of passengers' sight?
* What does the TSA consider a liquid?
* If a passenger is selected for secondary screening, what provisions are made to secure that passenger's belongings from theft until the passenger rejoins his belongings?
* Why are persons evaluating full body screens hidden from the person being submitted to the scan? How can the person being scanned guarantee that the images generated are not being stored in some form, used inappropriately, or hacked into while being transmitted to the distant location in which they are currently analyzed?
* In checkpoints using MMW scans as primary screening instead of metal detectors, what is the standard operation regarding small children not capable of going through on their own? Are they all patted down? What body parts does the pat-down include? How are parents traveling alone with small children screened? Must they abandon their child in the check point area to go through the MMW?
* MMW images are analyzed in a "remote undisclosed location", but are not stored or transmitted in any form, according to TSA information. How do the images get from the scanners to the remote location if they are not transmitted?
* Where has TSA published a list of all the rules and regulations that TSA will subject someone to if that person wishes to cross a U.S. Government checkpoint at an airport en route to the gate from which his domestic flight will depart, not including laws that the person is required to abide by outside of the airport checkpoint (i.e., just those rules and regulations that apply specifically at the checkpoint)?
--
Phil
Add your own questions at TSAFAQ.net
May 6, 2009 1:33 PM
Ayn sez - ""Just following orders" didn't work at Nurembert. Do you expect it to work here?"
The name of the city was actually Nuremberg and this is not double speak. What the people in Nuremberg were tried and convited of was racial policies, eugenics, euthanasia programs and concentration camps charges. If you can make a compelling argument that TSA is implementing those types of programs, please include a link here so I can brush up on what I have not noticed before.We have none of those policies in effect and if some were sent down to me I would be the first to cry out loud about them to the press. This is a totally different situation and the rules have remained essentially the same for a couple of years now (with minor variances and the introduction of TSO discretion). The rules remain the same, things are voluntarily surrendered - IF you are unable (or unwilling) to take advantage of the options given, there is nothing I can do about that. I understand that some times a passenger will not have the chance to take advantage of the options. I know this happens everyday, but the rules do not change just for that person based on the fact that they are in _______ (pick a reason to insert here). The rules are applied equally to all travellers as they should be. I personally have no problem with being screened going to work everyday. The organization made a decision to change that rule, and I abide by it (once again, that is something that came from waaaaayyyy above my pay grade). I understand the frustration when someone has to voluntarily give something up, but once again - the rules don't change for someone just because they are running late or at an out of town location.
West
EOS Blog Team
P.S. If you would like some bsic information on the Nuremberg trials, here is a link to Wiki, they ahve a decent distilled version of what happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials
May 6, 2009 3:24 PM
@Anonymous: "Well you may work for DHS, but if you are not a BDO than I am not too sure of how educated you are on the position. And without the education that the BDO is given I would believe that one would not understand what it is that goes into being a Behavioral Detection Officer. So thank you for your opinion."
What education is that? The 4 day course? I don't think anyone in their right mind would call that education. Training maybe ... but most likely inadequate training.
If someone's posting from DHS's Science and Technology Directorate, don't you think that that's the place where your "training" comes from?
The government uses junk science all the time. It's called a polygraph and its used for high level clearances. People fail it all the time - even my security officer did. And of course, they accuse people of lying during those "interviews" as well. I've had friends accused of growing and selling drugs, stealing things, and so forth all from little squiggly lines on a polygraph. Even I got tripped up on unreported and unauthorized foreign national contact (which I had nothing I hadn't reported).
Of course, it doesn't really detect much of anything, but it causes a lot of hassle for good people who haven't done anything wrong with the trust they've placed them.
Just because the government uses it and says it works doesn't mean that it actually does.
Earl
May 6, 2009 4:53 PM
@Anonymous (BDO?), May 4, 2009 4:48 PM: "without the education that the BDO is given I would believe that one would not understand what it is that goes into being a Behavioral Detection Officer."
If you are a BDO yourself, could you let us know where we might read an actual description of "what it is that goes into being a Behavioral Detection Officer," so we might understand it? Is there a curriculum description or something that describes the type and extent of the training they receive? Given the secrecy of every other facet of the TSA's operation, I would strongly doubt that any such information is available to the public (beyond the carefully spun PR pieces on this blog). But I thought I'd ask anyway, even though by now I should know better than to expect an answer other than "SSI." Or, for that matter, any answer at all.
In the absence of real information, how can we form any sort of useful opinion? Bob's original post makes some very legitimate points about the inherent difficulty of identifying "terrorists" by their appearance. In theory, a "behavior detection" strategy should be more effective than the current approach of TSOs interdicting "prohibited items" based on secret criteria. But is there any reason to believe that the strategy as implemented by the TSA actually does anything useful?
Is there really enough valid information about "terrorist behavior" to allow BDOs to reliably identify it, particularly in a crowd of people who have every reason to appear stressed, nervous, and angry? And if that is indeed possible, can BDOs actually do it reliably enough to stop terrorist plots? Have there been any scientifically valid tests of either the "behavior detection" methods, the training BDOs receive in those methods, and the BDOs' efficacy at implementing them? How many of their "detections" are false positives (drugs, cash, etc)? And how many of their "detections" are negatives, for which the passenger has been needlessly subjected to a stressful intrusive encounter with an "officer"?
The TSA insists that BDOs are effective. But since the specifics are secret we're just supposed to trust them, and accept those assertions on faith. But is there any reason why we should trust them and accept anything they say on faith? The best "objective" information available to us is a few press releases trumpeting BDO "successes." But those "successes" all involve things like drugs and fake military jackets. The press releases don't even bother to explain how the individuals in question threatened aviation. Rather, they ask us to take a leap of faith, that their ability to identify a drug courier through behavior proves that they can spot a terrorist, should one ever happen along. I'm sorry, but I can't find that very convincing.
In the absence of any information that would let me evaluate the actual value of the BDOs, I can only conclude that they're no more effective than any other part of the TSA's security theater. What I can see of the TSA's operation that's visible at checkpoints gives me no reason to believe that what goes on behind the curtain of secrecy is any different, any more competent, or any more effective. That's an inherent problem with any agency that insists on keeping most information about its operations secret. They have no way of convincing us that what they do is effective and justified other than to keep repeating "it is." But when they give us no reason to trust them, that repetition only gives more reason not to believe them. That's a real problem indeed.
May 6, 2009 5:38 PM
RB,
As you may have noticed TSA DOES screen for potentially dangerous materials. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out by others in this thread many of the components needed for an IED are commonly available items, watches, cell phones and the like, explosives present many challenges in detection, its not as cut and dried as many people make it out to be. Hence the layered security approach.
To use your house analogy, the doors might be locked, but the homeowner realizes that and has a dog too. Can any of these systems be beaten? Sure, no security is 100% but the idea is to make it as difficult as possible.
I agree cargo screening is an area that TSA needs to make up a lot of ground. But to argue that they should stop everything else in its tracks while the cargo issue is addressed is a strawman.
Also for our Anon service member who was in uniform on orders etc. Military uniforms are easy to come by, I still have a few sets of old travel orders in my file cabinet, it wouldn't be too difficult to make some changes to fix the dates... and how exactly are the TSOs supposed to know about your clearance? To whom should we exempt from screening? Everyone with a TS? What about people with just a Secret? Where do we draw that line?
May 6, 2009 6:04 PM
To: Ayn R. Key
Why should passengers be given a reciept for pickup later when it is posted everywhere for what cannot be brought through a checkpoint. Last I checked, TSA is not my babysitting service. It's just stupidity on the passengers part because they forgot. If it is THAT expensive, leave it at home.
May 6, 2009 7:56 PM
GSOLTSO said...
"It is not double speak, it is plainly written. Just because the answer is not what you want, doesn't change the fact that AN answer is there."
It is Hobson's choice. That is, it is an "all or nothing" choice, which is no real choice at all.
Plain speak: If you want to fly today, you will allow TSA to confiscate and destroy your prohibited item. (It's confiscatory because there is no avenue by which you can reclaim your prohibited item.)
Double speak: If you want to fly today, you will "voluntarily surrender" your prohibited item.
No one said that's not AN answer. That answer p***** everyone off because that answer deliberately obfuscates what's actually going on. Just say what you're doing in plain language and stop trying to make it sound like a free choice. In actual practice in the real world, there's nothing whatever "voluntary" about it. Of course, if TSA says it in plain language, they would break the extraordinarily thin legal ice they're skating on.
Irish
May 7, 2009 9:19 AM
""...TSOC watches their movements for awhile"
And just how do they do that?"
here's a link on TSOC:
http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/inside_tsoc.shtm
As to how they do that, we don't know. Unlike the SSI reason that's given out here for not giving out information, TSOC needs a Top Secret Clearance to even enter the room. TSO-Joe
May 7, 2009 3:08 PM
Ryan62 writes:
and how exactly are the TSOs supposed to know about your clearance? To whom should we exempt from screening? Everyone with a TS? What about people with just a Secret? Where do we draw that line?
I don't know. But TSA draws that line already --- in a fairly inconsistent way.
See, airport employees aren't subject to screening when they enter the sterile area. Pilots and flight attendants are given broad exemptions to various rules (e.g. the liquids rules). When asked, the usual answer posted in forums like is something along the lines of "well, they've passed security clearances, so we know we can trust them".
But passengers who have clearances which meet or exceed the standards used by airport and airline employees are still subject to screening. It doesn't matter that the federal government already has judged these people worthy of trust; they still have to obey all the rules that the rest of us do.
Do you see the contradiction?
Either a federal security clearance should grant someone an exemption to screening, or it shouldn't. Right now, that's not the case.
May 7, 2009 4:55 PM
"When I was active duty military, travelling in uniform on orders, I had a TS/SCI clearance (probably knew more about terrorists than TSA too) and they still ran me thru all the crap. Take off the combat boots, empty the pockets, etc."
I was @ Camp Pennsylvania in 2003 when an 101st airborne soldier decided to drop a few frags into a command tent. I'm in the Signal Corps and have a clearance too...as does everyone else in my unit. However, I still lock my barracks room door when I step out, and my car doors after I park it. I think it's funny when people use the military as an excuse for special treatment.
May 7, 2009 5:10 PM
" sunny said...
I am sure Government agencies are doing what ever it takes to find out who the real terrorist is. Because of these measures there are no more attacks like 9/11. One shouldn't question "do I look like a terrorist". Because terrorists try to behave like normal safe people. I think everyone should co-operate with airport authorities rather than questioning them."
I prefer the concept of putting authority on the defensive- IF their actions are outside of the boundaries of either law, or even common sense. TSO's are paid to follow a set of rules, not make them up.
May 7, 2009 5:19 PM
" AKM said...
I agree. You can apologize (even though its not your fault) for any inconveniences. NRT (Narita Airport, Japan) security are very friendly, yet strict with the rules. My mom got caught with liquids over 3oz, and the security was apologetic that she can't bring it in the plane. They offered the best solution to check it in. They helped my mom with the items, escorted her back to the check-in area, and helped her check-in the items. Very nice! I am pretty sure there are US airports that do that as well."
Some friends recently went online to TSA.gov, read up on the 3-1-1 rules, ordered 3oz bottles, baggie and labels on the internet, and set off on a trip. They were fine
outbound, on the return were told they "didn't have the original product labels and the original TSO was wrong to let them through".
TSA won't hear from my friends, I agreed, TSA can't get its own employees to follow its own rules.
May 7, 2009 5:37 PM
I wonder why you delete-o-metered my post.
Basically, it taked about some of George's concerns with "effective". How do you measure effectiveness? Cost? Sensitivity? Specificity? Precision? Positive predictive power? Negative predictive power? Health of the airline industry? Health of the economy? False IDs and Druggies arrested? Thousands of items confiscated?
In what way is TSA more "effective" than the pre-9/11 WTMD?
May 8, 2009 1:03 AM
GSOLTSO said...
Ayn sez - ""Just following orders" didn't work at Nurembert. Do you expect it to work here?"
GSOLTSO said…
The name of the city was actually Nuremberg and this is not double speak. What the people in Nuremberg were tried and convited of was racial policies, eugenics, euthanasia programs and concentration camps charges.
************
West the defense used by many of the convicted was “I was following orders”. This legal defense became known as the “Nuremberg Defense”. The reason it does not hold up is if you do something that you know is wrong or illegal, being ordered to do it by a superior does not abrogate your responsibility. It does not matter what the crime is.
This link should help; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense
When you continue to use double speak it would help if you understood what you are talking about.
May 8, 2009 10:40 AM
GSOLTSO said: "The rules remain the same, things are voluntarily surrendered - IF you are unable (or unwilling) to take advantage of the options given, there is nothing I can do about that. I understand that some times a passenger will not have the chance to take advantage of the options. ... the rules don't change for someone just because they are running late or at an out of town location."----
West, what you need to understand, as you show up every day at the same old airport, is that more than half of the people passing through an airport terminal are "out of town". The simplest trip a person can take is A to B, then B to A. At location B, they're "out of town" - that is, half of the airports they go through. More complicated trips are A to B to C to... and ... C to B to A, where at locations B and C, they're out of town - 2/3 of the airports.
When you and your colleagues dismiss the "out of town" as if it's a rare occurrence, you just look foolish. Being "out of town" is the whole point of airline travel, not the exception to the rule.
Now if I could be sure that airports A, B, C and the rest had exactly the same rules and standards, then any problems with an item would occur at airport A, where I might be able to go back to my car, leave it with a friend, etc. (Although if I took a taxi or public transport to the airport, I still don't have those options even at my home airport.) But if airport A allows it through and then airport B, C or D gives me grief, I have no options. Not a matter of "unwilling" not a matter of "running late", simply "no options". In that case I am not voluntarily surrendering; you are confiscating.
Or maybe you believe that when a mugger sticks a gun in your face and says, "Give me your wallet or I shoot", he's not robbing you. You voluntarily surrender your wallet because you had other options such as being dead.
I challenge you to pack a carry-on bag full of odd but completely legal items and spend a week flying around the country, and see what it feels like. Until then, stop making excuses for silly rules.
May 8, 2009 11:13 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home