Security Questions, Strange Answers

As I read this article on responses to the recent attempted terror attack on the flight to Detroit, I find myself bothered by a few matters.

One, this attacker had been turned away from Britain, reported to our embassy in Nigeria, and highlighted as a threat for nearly 2 years before this. So, we had warning about the person that was credible, but no action was taken.

Two, he had the same explosive on his body that the "shoe bomber," Richard Reid, used. That means either we have not found a way of finding such explosives when on the body short of a vigorous body search, or our system failed in Nigeria and Amsterdam, where he went through security.

Three, while it was alert passengers who subdued the would-be bomber (same as what happened with the shoe bomber), our proposed solution is to make all passengers remain seated with nothing on their laps for the last hour of flying. How would this have made the bomber's flight safer? The bomb was strapped on his body--his carry-on was cleared. I have a flight coming up in a few weeks. If security is tighter while getting on the plane, fine. But unless we are supposed to sit for an hour before landing staring at our flying companions to see if there is anything suspicious they do, I cannot imagine that taking away our pillows or laptops will make us safer. It will only prompt discomfort and the occasional subduing of a passenger with an itchy chest who is mistaken by someone in his row for a threat.

Interestingly enough, since 9/11, passengers have been alert enough to stop the only two attackers who have made it on the plane. Screening may need to be improved, and the questions of more stringent "no fly" lists and the use of profiling to increase security (let's not go through the whole "we have to treat grannies in wheelchairs just like young men from Yemen" argument again)must be addressed. But creating a flying environment that is even more uncomfortable seems like we're trying to tell people that "everything is under control" when it's not, and we all know it.

Finally, I'm bothered by the articles that quote FBI and other law enforcement saying that they are operating on the assumption he was "acting alone." The man was trained in Yemen, on a watch list, and said he was operating in conjunction with Al Qaeda. How in the world can this be "acting alone?" The same was said about the shoe bomber and the Ft. Hood shooter. Then we find out that each has been in touch with Al Qaeda types, have been encouraged or assisted by them, etc. This is not a criminal activity. It is terrorists waging war with individual agents. If we treat this phenomena as if it is crazed individuals alone, and not a larger attempt to attack the nation, we will face another 9/11 and then wonder how it could have happened. Get the military involved; increase the presence of armed sky marshals. And call it "war," not "crime fighting."