I want to keep this as brief as possible: I had a flight from Chicago to D.C. today. None of the draconian regulations being shrieked about were in effect - no pat down, no double x-ray, no being forced to sit for the last hour. Nothing.
As far as I can tell, most or all of those are only for inbound international flights. Perhaps they're just waiting to phase them in? But I kind of doubt it.
As far as the failed attack itself - am I the only person who thinks that everything worked as intended? I mean, because of our security measures, it strikes me that this was basically the only way a person could get a bomb onto an airplane.
Clearly it wasn't a very effective way of getting a bomb onto an airplane.
I've seen commentators complaining that airport security measures haven't done any good / prevented any attacks. My response is that good security is security that is never needed. I'd be the last to advocate for a military state, and I find it a pain in the ass to take off my shoes - but it really doesn't take that long, and clearly it has deterred people from trying to carry out more attacks.
I just finished my first semester of law school, and one thing I came away with is a greater skepticism of the concept of 'deterrence' as a policy, especially if jail time / 3 strikes / etc. is what you hope will deter that crime. But in the case of the TSA, I really think it works - the security is tight enough that people don't even try. And it's also tight enough that when people slip through the cracks, they have to do it in ways that are much less likely to succeed.
I miss being able to take soda through to the gate with me. But if this guy had two nalgenes full of explosives in his backpack, would things have ended differently?
Just some food for thought.