“How about we agree that if it looks suspicious you check it out. If it is a bomb, you take whatever emergency steps are required...”
That is exactly what happened at Logan Airport.
“...you and your fellow travellers have lost site of is that the real threat that we and the terrorists are concerned about is a bomb on an airplane.”
I have not lost sight of this. I simply don’t want to end our security there, simply because it’s often a worst-case to get onto the plane.
“In particular you of the hard core calvinist bent have a hard time putting the not not guilty into the innocent bin.”
She is as guilty of a crime as someone who shouted “fire” in a crowded theater. Her actions were obviously pre-meditated, and were intended to cause a panic.
“Is it your view that security folks are such cretins...”
I believe this is the point you have been espousing. My view is that when one purposely sets out to cause a panic by pretending to be a suicide bomber, they are both subject to criminal charges, and in danger of being shot to death, under justifiable circumstances.
I am frankly astounded that you are so obtuse on this very simple point.
The little problem that I have is that before one is convicted and shot, one should be proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt by the evidence. I don't see your imputation of her motive to cause public panic as the least bit obvious at all, since quite evidently the public did not panic. I would like to see more evidence of her intent to cause panic than to decorate herself like a cheap christmas tree.
In particular, as near as I can tell, she neither shouted fire, nor bomb, nor anything else that could be interpreted as a threat by a reasonable individual.
So, I guess I am obtuse, but it only takes one obtuse person on her jury and she walks.