Stop the presses: Mainstream media praises airport security?
Here's the headline and subhed:
Did U.S. airport security get it right this time?
It's heartening that our luggage-screening protocols are effective enough to detect what could have been dangerous
I know, I could hardly believe this myself. With all the criticism that aviation security has received since, well, 9/11 certainly, this article from Salon.com doesn't exactly hold back its shock that airport security could actually, just maybe, might be, let's-not-get-too excited, but, it is possible that it could be effective. Take that critics.
The article goes on to say that two men headed from the United States to Yemen were detained after security staff discovered suspicious items in one of the men's checked luggage. However, security folks had a few indications that this guy might be up to no good. On his original flight, screeners found watches, cellphones and a bottle of Pepto-Bismol taped together in his luggage, but determined that none of the items were dangers. Maybe not dangerous, but certainly bizarre.
The man in question actually missed his connecting flight and was rerouted on a different airline. Because luggage can't travel on a plane without its owner (which I did not know, by the way), his luggage was removed and consequentially rescreened. During that rescreening, apparently authorities discovered something in his luggage because they arrested him (but the article neglects to say what was found). So get ready aviation security folks, because the following excerpt is nothing you'll likely read again any time soon:
And although we will never be completely protected -- a resourceful enough saboteur will always figure out a way to smuggle deadly components onto an aircraft -- it is heartening to see that our luggage screening protocols actually work, and are effective enough to detect what could have been something dangerous.
I find giving aviation security a little bit of due praise heartening myself.