"" He says all the extra security doesn't effect future crimes. How could he know that; how could we? It's far to complex of an issue to just say, "Well i've never seen them pull a guy out of line, pat him down, and then find a bomb on him; so all the security must be worthless.""

Generally speaking, I think just about every security consultant and reporter who has tried to smuggle things and break airport security has succeeded. Its impossible to say though, if it has in actuality had much effect though, you are right about that.

But the general gist is whats important. I think historically, many more people have died and suffered as a result of living in police states, than have as a result of terrorism. Its a social/psychological aspect that people are inherently more afraid of outlandish, unlikely things than of more mundane dangers, even though the mundane dangers are far greater.

If you look at the number of traffic deaths in the past decade and compare it to the number of terrorism-related deaths in the USoA, one can clearly see that driving to work
is far more dangerous as a practical matter than Islamic terrorists, statistically speaking.

It just seems silly overall, and can make one wonder exactly who all the rules and survielance are supposed to serve. Which in turn leads to some pretty unpleasant lines of thinking.