First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a random post from the archives. Feel free to ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!

The photo shown to jurors in the liquid-bomber trial, picturing the apparent bomb-making ingredients

The Economist has an article in the current issue on the recent trial of the so-called liquid bombers — a trial that has widely been described as a failure for government prosecutors. The trial was a mess. While three were convicted of conspiracy to murder, this was not technically a conviction on the charge of attempting to blow up planes. Additionally, four suspects were acquitted.

Putting aside the trial itself (though the failure to convict potentially punches holes in the size of the threat that our governments have been touting…), the Economist report includes a quote that caught my attention (emphasis added):

With airlines demanding the end of restrictions on carrying liquids in hand luggage, British prosecutors said they would apply for a retrial of seven of the men, alleging that they all “conspired to detonate improvised explosive devices on transatlantic passenger aircraft”.

If airlines are actually demanding the reinstatement of sensible carrying-on of liquids, then I’d like to hear about it. This is the first I’ve heard of this. I’ll put in a call to some airlines to see if they’ll actually go on record to say they’re pushing to allow liquids through security again. (In the US, it might hurt their in-flight catering sales…)

But in the meantime, may I remind you that other countries, such as Japan, already have liquid bomb testers? Maybe the more important question is why other countries, including the US, still don’t.

Related:
- Two years later, and still no liquid bomb detectors in US or EU airports
- Vengeful passengers fight back against buy-on-board water and soda
- Airport Security: TSA Re-Allows Lighters on Board; Non-Flammable Water Still a Threat to Safety