Is it obviously ineffective?
So, after 8 years of airport security clampdowns, with the daily inconvenience, delays, and humiliation of millions of air travellers, billions in increased "security" activity, and the only successes at preventing serious incidents have been achieved by either good fortune or civilian intervention.
The syringe bomber was apparently on at least two different lists of terrorist suspects, his parents had reported him as an extremist, he had been refused entry to the UK, he was living in the Yemen, he paid cash for a one way ticket to the US carrying no luggage, and he managed to not only get on the plane, but smuggle explosives and a syringe on as well. So what is the point of all the idiotic focus on ageing Auntie Ethel's belt, lipstick, tweezers and toothpaste?
Isn't it time to focus harder on the people who are likely terrorists, and back off a bit on those who are obviously not radical extremists? They have loads of advance information about every air passenger, so surely the most basic check would eliminate 99% of travellers from suspicion. A middle aged salesman from Cheshire, on a flight from Manchester to Copenhagen, who does the same flight every month or so, should not be routinely subjected to the same level of check as the guy described above on the Detroit flight. So is it time to stop pandering to the PC/HR people and concentrate on the travellers who are most likely to be terrorists?