The obvious red flags aren't red flags because they're obvious. If someone isn't smart enough to realise that, they're not smart enough to pose any real threat. We're dealing with focused people who know that huge resources are going into finding them. What we're looking for is people trying to conceal their actions and obfuscate their movements. By jumping on a chair and screaming "Aaaagh, terrorist!" every time we see a piece of Islamica, we're just reinforcing the idea that people are suspicious for 'looking Muslim'.

The fact that he didn't have a warm coat is absolutely irrelevant. We had high-quality intelligence against him but failed to act upon it in any way. We need to worry less about whether someone looks shifty at an airport and worry more about keeping tabs on people who we have strong intelligence on.

It is also worth stating that his attack failed and he was unable to damage anything other than his own groin.

The recent cargo bomb was missed despite multiple tips about that specific item as well!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab#The_a...

Terrorist attacks increase the funding of the intel and security institutions, so they have a vested interest in them occurring (and a state willing to kill tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq to advance its objectives likely has little problem sacrificing the odd planeload of its own citizens to maintain public support for its ambitions).

Right, you're carrying something. It seems like the Christmas Day bomber wasn't carrying anything (aside from his bomb).

So, the red flags are noticed at least sometimes.

it does make you wonder to what extent such decoys have been accounted for in the overall security strategy.

Carrying explosives onto a plane most certainly is a red flag...

A 17" MacBook Pro battery contains 95 watt hours = 342 kilojoules. Effectively using the battery as a weapon would require some creativity, but the battery contains almost 30 times as much energy as the bullet. And lithium ion batteries are known to explode in extreme circumstances.

But the point I would like to make is that it is inappropriate to make important decisions on vocabulary. Is an unused bullet any more of an "explosive" than a laptop battery? Is a long piece of broken glass a "blade over 3 inches"? These screening guidelines are simply guidelines, to be used in context. Should you allow someone to take live ammunition on a plan? Of course not. But when we expect customs officers to strongly interrogate someone who has already landed about a travel souvenir, the terrorists have already won.

Even GSR on your hands will get you grilled at Heathrow, I speak from experience there.

You're over-generalising; I reckon there are plenty of idiots in Al-Quaeda.

Does people carrying bullets constitute everyone?

If he'd come from North America with a balaclava, copy of the hackers handbook, candy box featuring a picture of David Koresh and a bullet do you think he wouldn’t have been searched and added to a watch-list?

Unfortunately there's no way to conduct surveillance only on guilty people.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-case...

and there is plenty of reason to be afraid of an idiot if they have access to bombs.

>> "...but there are folks trying to kill us (all of us)..."

Either this is not true, or it is true and our enemy is inept. If we had a competent enemy who was trying to kill us, then there would be a lot more of us dead.

Just this last Saturday presented and excellent opportunity to strike terror into the populace in our nation's capital. John Stewart's "Restoring Sanity and/or Fear" rally saw thousands of people densely packed in what had to have been--judging from the amount of alcohol consumption going on--a very loosely secured area. I've been to other events of similar scale that have been open season on comings and goings. There are opportunities for our enemies to hurt us, hurt us very badly, every day, and they do not take them.

I think this is an important issue to point out because fear of a bogeyman is still fear. Richard Nixon said, "People react to fear, not love--they don't teach that in Sunday School, but it's true." Rahm Emmanuel said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Bill Clinton identified the soccer-moms as the most important demographic in America, and he was right: they way to vast policy change is to connect it to a threat to a soccer-mom's babies.

There has been a resurgence in fascist and totalitarian ideology within Western government, all based around a hyped-up version of a nebulous, nefarious "them". We continue to play this security theater because it serves a purpose. The classic answer is that security theater instills confidence in the system. But I think it goes deeper. I think it gives the people a target, something to hate, something we can all agree sucks, and then see the futility of trying to change it. It's an indoctrination system to make "us" accept that the "right" way is a militaristic way.

I don't think we all need to live in fear, but I don't think we should live oblivious to threats just because things don't blow up more often.

But how do you have so much certainty there are threats? To me, I just can't reconcile this assertion that there are terrorists out there intent on killing us with the fact that they never do, despite it being comically simple to do so.

One might counter with the argument that the cargo plane bombs are an example of the ongoing threat. Perhaps, I will admit this is a possibility. But again, why are essentially all terrorist attacks never successful, when they would be so obviously easy on some of these large, soft targets? Perhaps these interceptions are something else? Impossible of course,

I've never had my house robbed, but I still lock the doors and have an alarm system. No one on my street has been robbed, but I can't just assume this street won't ever get burgled because I know that it does happen. So, I'm careful to lock up, but I'm not so scared I have inch bars on the windows, a guard dog, a watchman on guard, etc. There is just enough of a deterrent that it is a hassle for someone looking for a quick and easy break-in.

The question is, is our response to the supposed threat of terrorism proper? Your response to your threat is essentially cost free (except for the alarm I guess). The cost of the west's response to one terrorist attack is anything but free, it is measured in the Billions or Trillions, depending on how you look at it, not to mention the decrease in quality of life, lost productivity, etc.

And you are correct in where I am leaning....the timing of "attacks" often seems a bit too convenient, ie: the recent debate in Europe over the level and manner of US airport security measures.

To me, the theory that there are non-insignificant amounts of terrorists intent on attacking us, but these attacks have all (since we have had no successful attacks in the last ~ 10 years) been prevented by the security measures and organizations, is comical. So where does Occam's Razor lead you? :)

It is not their job to berate American citizens returning from trips abroad.

It is not their job to engage in emotionally charged interrogation regarding a person's religious views.

It is not their job to intimidate, harass, or jump to unsupported conclusions.

This is why the FBI is dead against torture (I know, this was not torture by any sense of the word) : it doesn't give them anything of value. On the other hand, they have had huge successes by winning the suspect's trust and letting him talk.

Sure, if you just came back from Afghanistan/Pakistan, are carrying sketchy items in your luggage, etc, I wouldn't be terribly surprised that you had to go chat with a friendly customs agent just to be sure you're not trying to blow anything up.

That's not what happened though - and despite the fact that this is purely a one-sided telling of the story, I've had sufficient dealings with CBP to suspect that it is most likely entirely true.

The author was harassed, verbally abused, and treated in an entirely unprofessional manner. The customs agent was out for blood/witches and gave up all semblance of professionalism and reason. This is extremely typical of my experiences with CBP.

The most hilarious thing is that most customs booths I've come across have had a big "we promise to treat you with professionalism and courtesy" poster from DHS emblazoned on it. I've never seen professionalism out of that organization - it's either complete and utter apathy, or (if they smell blood), complete and utter belligerence.

The fact of the matter is, CBP agents treat every single traveler as guilty before being proven innocent. Every slight deviation from the norm is treated as proof positive that you're a terrorist. Every denial and scrap of evidence you have is merely treated as a smokescreen from your true guilt. I swear, to work as a modern American border guard probably implies complete sociopathy - I'm not sure how it'd work otherwise.

CBP is an embarrassment to America. If all we ever saw of American was, well, the first people you meet at the border, I'd never want to visit. As a non-American I'm certainly not in a position to fix this, but for the Americans out there, please fix this. This is one of the many reasons why America enjoys such a dubious reputation abroad, and needs to be fixed. The author here is an American citizen - the treatment foreign nationals get is considerably more blood-boiling.

Isn't this just part of the weeding out process, they're trying to provoke a reaction to establish whether you're some sort of violent fundamentalist?

Presumably the psychologist looking from the other side of the one-way glass is assessing your body language and sub-conscious expressions to establish what you're doing there, if you're simply a naive tourist or someone who should be watched or retained.

If you want to interrogate someone, get them to tell their story. Then ask them to tell it again, from a slightly different perspective. Then again. Look for inconsistencies - there should be a few (everyone gets a bit hazy on things), but not too many.

What in the world do you think a psychologist can tell from a person's response to getting yelled at unreasonably?

For what it's worth, CBP has always been cock-ups. I returned from Japan in 1988 once and that guy was a cast-iron jerk. I swear they consider every American who travels to be a traitor.

To be honest, though? Since Homeland Security, CBP has actually gotten more professional. I know it's hard to believe, but in my experience, it's true. (Of course, I'm older now and presumably less scary for Customs now that I have kids, so perhaps a single data point is insufficient.)

Which do you think is more likely? That a terrorist secretly plotting against the United States is willing to risk capture over a package of propaganda candy? Or that an American abroad found the candy notable enough to bring a pack back as a conversation piece?

The terrorists we ought to be afraid of (if we ought to be afraid of any at all) are not the ones bringing Osama bin Laden candy and burqas on planes. They're the ones who blend in perfectly, the ones we would never pick out of a lineup, the ones who would never make amateur mistakes like bringing a Qu'ran onto a plane. Customs agents aren't going to frazzle the dangerous terrorists by yelling at them. No, to catch the dangerous terrorists, we need real intelligence gathering and analysis. Customs agents on power trips will not suffice.

Well, the ones inept enough to do that are only not a threat if we stop them when they do inept stuff like that.

Good thing this policy stopped the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh.

I travel all the time, and our security system does not protect anything but our peace of mind.

By itself? It'd be a stretch. When found with a bullet, Osama Bin Laden merchandise, a journal detailing how you can revoke your US citizenship, and trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan...

Of course, if the bullet was really just the bullet without the propellant (that was not clear to me) then yeah, I agree with you.

[1] I think It's the explosive powder that matters here. A bullet with no propellant is just a lump of lead, which I think would be okay.

From your last sentence, I can see you are no stranger to making snap judgements without all the details. ;)

The article itself says that the customs agent "suggested that I had used the burqa in order to move undetected throughout the tribal regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan". Seeing as he is not a Muslim and wouldn't have one for religious reasons, that does seem like it might be a fair question.

There's no excuse for this kind of treatment in a free country. Absolutely none. This kind of attitude destroys freedom, not terrorists.

You and I are in a fringe minority there, my friend.

I don't think it reflects the reality of the situation there. Your comment is basically an admission of giving up personal rights and liberties because of a blind fear.

EDIT (sober second thought): The phone tap (if true) does seem a little beyond the pale.

That's what we're told to believe, but given the propensities of those pushing this idea (who, by their own records, killed 60,000+ civilians in Iraq) I'd take the threat with a grain of salt. If terrorists want to target civilians rather than the military, my guess is they'd be going after the low hanging fruit (starting forest fires and the like).

No, certainly, that doesn't sound unreasonable at all.

2. If a particular religious belief is dangerous to United States citizens, then it makes sense to use that religious belief as justification for preventing or controlling their entry into the United States.

3. People can make up whatever they want and call it a religion. In fact that is how many (all?) religions have been formed.

4. From 1, 2, and 3 it follows that it can in fact make sense to use a person's religious belief as justification for preventing or controlling their entry into the United States.

5. The Qu'ran can be legitimately interpreted to mean that Muslims should kill United States citizens: http://www.bloggersbase.com/politics-and-opinions/3-islam/

6. From 5, the Muslim religion is dangerous to United States citizens.

7. From 6 and 2 it follows that it makes sense for Muslim beliefs to be used as justification for preventing or controlling entry into the United States.

That being said, I still think the security guard was in the wrong. Clearly, our protagonist was not a problem, and the guard should have been able to discover that without stomping all over his rights. What's so hard about innocent until proven guilty? It ensures justice, even if the person turns out to be guilty.

This is controversial, because there are many Muslims who do not have ill intent toward United States citizens. I have good friends who are Muslim. Unfortunately, they have been raised with a religion that is potentially dangerous. Such is the problem with indoctrinating kids. I dropped the religion I was brought up with (Christianity) when I finally realized that it wasn't true and therefore shouldn't believe it. Perhaps Muslims need to do the same.

Most religions are innocuous enough that you can just let people believe what they want, and no harm done. But when leaving them to practice their religion might lead to them killing you, it's a little different.

2. Okay, but this is not relevant to the story in question (see point 4).

3. Okay, but this is not relevant to the story in question. (see point 4)

4. I'm willing to cede this and the previous 3 with regard to the parent. The question then becomes, do you believe in religious freedom enough to take the risk, or would you rather remove this threat and lose the religious freedom? The hypocrisy of subverting the constitution in order to protect the constitution is untenable. If you are truly concerned about this, it seems you should be explicitly campaigning for an amendment to the constitution to more strictly define the "acceptable" religions. If you're too ashamed to explicitly get behind that, it shouldn't be hidden by unwritten policies of arbitrary harassment of certain religions.

5. I'm embarrassed someone on Hacker News would except that video as "legitimate interpretation". The fundamental factual errors about the Qur'an and Islam would be comical if it wasn't juxtaposed by the sadness of meeting someone that actually believed that without independent research. (Nearly?) every factual statement made to support the opinions presented is factually incorrect:

(a) "The Qur'an is not full of symbolism or vague analogies-- implicitly stating that the New/Old Testament are "full" of symbolism and vague analogies and not meant to be taken literally- a self-serving, unsupportable implication.

(b) It is mostly direct commands-- false, by far, by any interpretation of "mostly"

(c) The Qur'an contains contradictory statements-- he seems to be confused about abrogated verses- actually, any statements of early Islam that were abrogated later were removed from the Qur'aan before its final compilation as a book.

(d) The Qur'an ITSELF provides a way to know what to with the "contradictions"-- ??? this simply does not exist

(e) "It's explained in the Qur'aan.... "-- Again, this does not exist. It's simply a bald-faced fabrication.

(f) The peaceful tolerant passages were "written" earlier in Muhammad's career-- again, false. The earlier passages did not deal with either peace or war, they dealt mostly with self-rectification. The later verses, after the establishment of a monolithic Islamic community with communal dealings with the outside world, added to that verses with guidance regarding both peace and war.

(g) "those passages have been abrogated..."-- see point c- if that were so, they would have been removed entirely during compilation

(h) "There is no picking and choosing" -- finally an accurate statement

That brings me to 2:54, and I'm too bored to continue answering nonsense that any 10 year old Muslim sunday schooler could have responded to.

6. See 5.

7. See 6 and 4.

Yeah, I just pulled a http://xkcd.com/386/ But you know what, it was cathartic after reading some of the embarrassing comments on this piece. I just picked the most ridiculous one and went to town.

I think that the way the Qu'ran words it, you could legitimately interpret it the way that that blog post did, and I think that you can legitimately interpret it to be peaceful. (Not that that makes the Qu'ran legitimate. I hate that religious books aren't perfectly unambiguous.)

Based on this I think that we should judge the individual, not the religion.

However, based on statistics, it has been members of this religion that perform terrorist attacks, so profiling makes sense. I just don't think it needs to be done in the manner described in this story, especially for U.S. citizens.

In my ideal society, we wouldn't even have airline security for U.S. citizens, regardless of religion. This means that every once in a while, a terrorist would slip through the cracks. But such is the price of freedom. Perhaps even the good guys on the plane would be armed and take out the bad guy before he could cause harm.

(b) Now addressing interpretation, you cannot legitimately interpret the Qur'aan either the way that video words it, nor "to be peaceful". Rather, as appropriate to its claim of being a complete life-guide, it will necessarily contain the laws, morals, and motivations of both war and peace.

(c) "Religious books aren't perfectly unambiguous"-- have you done an exhaustive survey of all "religious books" to be able to make such a bold, broad statement? It seems likely you're relying on very limited information regarding a few religious books and abstracting, without any possible justification, to all religious books. This seems likely to be more based on personal dogma than rational thought.

Freedom of religion is at the heart of the founding principles of the United States of America — I can't think of anything more central to the identity of this country. If you're going to speak against freedom of religion, then it would be a very short stretch to call that position "anti-American" — and any national defense policy considered with that pretext is already severely undermined.

Are they acting on it?

Do you have suicide bombers killing people in other countries in the name of Christianity? You pointed to one, single, crazy group that may or may not even be affiliated with religion.

It's funny how all the intelligent people here seem to play dumb when it comes to understanding why US customs agents may want question someone that could be a potential threat to the US.

If it were middle-age white guys that were killing people, I would hope custom agents would profile them as well. It's the intelligent thing to do.

"Freedom of religion is at the heart of the founding principles of the United States of America "

I find it hilarious that the lefties in the US are so against religion..unless it's Islam. I think it's probably because they are both on the side against the Unites States.

Would you like some more?

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/hate.htm

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map (Click on any state)

Look at any of these groups and you'd be very, very hard-pressed to find one without an ideological claim to a Christian identity. These groups pose a very real threat, which is why the FBI tracks and monitors them. However, the existence of right-wing Christian hate groups does not indict all practitioners of Christianity world-wide.

As for the rest of your post, you've simply attempted to rebut a series of arguments that nobody actually made — I believe they call these "straw man" fallacies. E.g.: I never mentioned "profiling" — the issues are religious persecution and outright harassment by government officials, in a blatantly unconstitutional fashion.

>"Lefties are against religion." "Lefties are against the United States."

Really? Seriously? Why don't you read my posts again — this time carefully, and try once more.

When you say freedom of religion, you don't mean complete freedom. What if my religion states that I shouldn't pay taxes? Obviously this religion would not be tolerated.

That's why we have laws which define the boundaries and interactions between the freedoms of society's members. It's not useful or practical to define freedom in any other context (i.e., that in nature, outside of society), because there would be no conflicts in that case. Freedom can only really be discussed in terms of social relations.

But these are issues that U.S. courts have had quite a lot to say about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_Unit...

And the situation with Islam today certainly has historical precedents:

Anti-Catholicism was widespread in the 1920s; anti-Catholics, including the Ku Klux Klan, believed that Catholicism was incompatible with democracy and that parochial schools encouraged separatism and kept Catholics from becoming loyal Americans. The Catholics responded to such prejudices by repeatedly asserting their rights as American citizens and by arguing that they, not the nativists (anti-Catholics), were true patriots since they believed in the right to freedom of religion.

I agree, it was unreasonable of the security guard to do that. However, if the Muslim religion is violent when taken seriously, it can be valid to question whether someone is a believer in that violence.

What I should have done is left to question whether the Muslim religion is violent when taken seriously, because I'm not sure about that.

Do you agree with the if-then clause in my argument?