re: #31 Charles

By the way, last June a majority of Republicans in the House voted against a bill that would have installed bomb detection systems at airports.

Not really related to this case, where the bomb entered the system overseas. But I will say that, as much as I’m fascinated by technology, it really isn’t going to be a solution in cases like these anyway. We can spend billions putting sniffers in place that have a high degree of sophistication, while terrorists spend a few thousand taking probe flights to learn what substances the machines miss, and how to package and prepare explosives to evade detection.

X-raying checked luggage is an excellent idea - anything in the luggage compartment is going to need mechanical aids to ensure detonation that show up well on x-rays - and there are extensive systems in place to do this already. On the passenger side, however, what’s really needed is a stronger emphasis on human intelligence - including the dreaded “profiling” that’s used by every other security force on the planet. We tend to like technology, and over-emphasize it in this country, because it depersonalizes surveillance and removes any hint of prejudice that human-based intelligence inevitably carries with it. It’s very objectivity tends, however, to mask it’s shortcomings. You can’t have an effective security system when you take half the cards off the table, and in my view adding more technology to airports is not worth the marginal improvement in security it may temporarily achieve. From where we currently stand, it would be much more effective dedicating money to training in human surveillance techniques.