Options
GAO: 'Unclear' if Airport Body Scanners Will Detect Underwear Bombs
· Thursday, December 9, 2010
Repeatedly over the past year the Government Accountability Office has told Congress it is unclear if the whole-body-image scanners the Transportation Security Administration is now deploying at airports across the country will detect the sort of underwear bomb that terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab used last Christmas when he attempted to blow up Northwest Flight 253 as it approached Detroit from Amsterdam.
Even though TSA has put these so-called Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) scanners through both laboratory and operational testing, Congress's own auditing agency says it "remains unclear" that they can actually do the primary job they are intended to do.
Steve Lord, the GAO's director of homeland security and justice issues, made this point most recently in written testimony presented last Thursday to the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety and Security.
"Furthermore, as noted in our March 2010 testimony," Lord wrote, "it remains unclear whether the AIT would have been able to detect the weapon used in the December 2009 incident based on the preliminary TSA information we have received."
TSA initially intended to deploy far fewer AIT whole-body-image scanners. But it changed its mind specifically in response to Abdulmutallab's attempted Christmas underwear bombing.
"In response to the December 25, 2009, attempted attack on Northwest Flight 253, TSA revised the AIT procurement and deployment strategy, increasing the planned deployment of AITs from 878 to 1,800 units and using AITs as a primary -- instead of a secondary -- screening measure where feasible," GAO's Lord told the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security on March 17.
Lord told that subcommittee that "operational testing for the AIT was successfully completed late in 2009 before its deployment was fully initiated." However, Lord said, "While officials said AITs performed as well as physical pat-downs in operational tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident based on the preliminary information GAO has received."
Three months later, in a letter to Republican Rep. John Mica of Florida, the ranking member of the House Transportation Committee, the GAO restated its assessment that the government did not know if the scanners would detect underwear bombs.
"While officials said AITs performed as well as physical pat-downs in operational tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident based on the preliminary information we have received," said the letter.
I asked TSA if it contested GAO testimony that "it 'remains unclear" to the U.S. government that the 1,800 ATI whole body image scanners that TSA is in the process of deploying at airports around the country will in fact detect the sort of underwear bomb used in the attempted attack on Northwest Flight 253 on December 25, 2009."
TSA spokesperson Sterling Payne responded by email. "While there is no silver bullet technology, advanced imaging technology is very effective at detecting metallic and nonmetallic threats on passengers, including explosives," said Payne. "Further, this technology doesn't stand alone: It's one part of our multi-layered strategy to minimize risk, deter future attacks and protect the traveling public.
"TSA began piloting imaging technology in early 2007," said Payne. "Through the pilot process, TSA gained operational information used to enhance training, improve the screening process and further bolster detection capabilities. Using this critical technology, TSA routinely detects artfully concealed metallic and nonmetallic prohibited items. TSA completed comprehensive operational testing and evaluation of this technology and is confident that it will significantly increase our detection capability at the checkpoint."
Payne said the AIT scanners cost between $130,000 and $170,000 per unit. That means deploying the full 1,800 will cost taxpayers between $2.34 billion and $3.06 billion.
And even if they could be counted on to detect an underwear bomb, the TSA, after buying 1,800 of them, intends to leave 500 domestic airport security checkpoints without them.
"There's about, from my understanding, 2,300 checkpoints," Lord told the Senate subcommittee last week. "So if you acquire 1,800 machines, it's still not going to be enough to ensure 100 percent coverage. TSA's strategy is to focus the use of these machines on the highest-volume airports."
Whether in fact a whole-body-image scanner catches a future underwear bomber boarding a flight in a foreign airport will depend not only on the effectiveness of the scanner, but on the country in which the airport is located. "At least 13 other nations are now testing or deploying these scanners, or have committed to deploying them in the near future," Lord told the Senate subcommittee.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Lyn Nofziger, "North Star" of the Reagan Revolution: "The Patriot not only does the best job of putting important news, policy and opinion in proper context, but also of cutting down to size the pompous praters and propagandists on the left." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
- Linda Chavez: Overreach by Unions in Wisconsin
- Mona Charen: Obama's Education Hypocrisy -- Again
- Jonah Goldberg: Big Business Gets the Hollywood Treatment
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























Bea
Why is this posted here? If Patriot Post is truly dedicated to essential liberty, why does the author ignore these machines' direct assault on the Fourth Amendment? Why does he mindlessly regurgitate the agency's propaganda without holding it up to either the Constitution or simple decency? He quotes the TSA at length, but there's not a single quote from any of the agency's victims or critics.
Shame on him and on the editors. This is a huge disservice to freedom.
Posted December 9, 2010 at 10:31:01 AM
Mark
Once again the GAO is unafraid to show how an administration policy is having no effect in "solving" a problem while incurring $B in deficit spending. Thanks for pointing this out.
Unfortunately the GAO is never listened to by congress or the administration.
And the American public doesn't seem to care about either the ineffectiveness, the cost, or the fact that our civil liberties are being unilaterally suspended by a virtual dictatorship. The cowards among us perceive themselves safer because their god-almighty government is doing SOMETHING.
At least George Soros was getting far richer off the sale of those machines (just like Cheney and Haliburton did off the Iraq war), at least until Glenn Beck publicized his connection and he appeared to have "backed out".
Posted December 9, 2010 at 12:09:14 PM
p3orion
"And even if they could be counted on to detect an underwear bomb, the TSA, after buying 1,800 of them, intends to leave 500 domestic airport security checkpoints without them."
You can be sure that Al Qaeda knows exactly which ones, too.
Bea- You're of course correct that the larger issue should be the unconstitutional nature of these machines (as well as the "enhanced pat-down" punishment inflicted upon any who will not submit.) But the point is that the Underwear Bomber was repeatedly cited as the reason we had to have these. Actually, acquisition of the scanners had been in the works for a couple of years, ever since The Chertoff Group started representing RapiScan, the company that makes them.
Posted December 9, 2010 at 1:30:56 PM
Arnie
Ah, p3orion, the corruption charges just continue to mount. The aftermath of 2012 could make Nuremberg look like an ice-cream social.
Posted December 9, 2010 at 3:38:22 PM