Mainly by the FBI, based on that wikipedia article.
FBI: Hey, do you want to blow something up?
Terrorist: OK
FBI: Here's a bomb, go blow something up.
Terrorist: OK
[click]
FBI: You're under arrest!
Sure, the guy committed a crime, but was I wouldn't say the event was "targeted to be blown up". It was a sting operation. A small probability threat was amplified by the FBI for the purpose of making a case. Does that justify TSA goons everywhere? The same ones that won't let you bring your bottle of Coke on an airplane?
Governments love to use "larger than life" enemies to justify a disproportionate invasion of liberty. It used to be Communists, now it's Terrorists.
When you read the actual indictments and court transcripts in cases like this, the would-be terrorists turn out to be nothing like the passive actor you hypothesize here, but rather display a fair degree of initiative; they have typically come to the FBI's attention because people around them are alarmed by their aspirations and report them to law enforcement.
There are tough legal questions about where the borderline between facilitation and encouragement lies. But someone who willingly goes through the steps required t detonate what they believe to be a fully armed truck bomb is not a mere innocent victim. The correct answer to 'Hey, do you want to blow something up?' is 'No, because that would be crazy and horrible.'
I didn't say the man was innocent. What I said was that the event the parent poster referred to was not really targeted by terrorists, but rather by an FBI sting operation. This means that the event was never in any real danger, and using it to justify expanding TSA security theater is not valid.
I think that's a faulty generalization. Since I read criminal indictments for fun I'm quite familiar with the FBI's methods. Please don't take this to mean I think they're always ethical, legal, or effective.
You shouldn't change your assessment of the risks just because you almost got unlucky. It's like suddenly deciding that lottery tickets are a good investment just because you know someone who won.
Without belittling the realization of ones own mortality which is a very healthy thing, the question here isn't whether a police state "makes us safer" (it probably does) but what level of trade off between civil liberties and privacy we are willing to make to be safer.
Since being safer is infinitely possible and impossible to measure, we should start and end the conversation with civil liberty, not with safety. Do you want the government to try to perform stings on would-be terrorists, potentially entrapping otherwise innocent people? I'm ok with that. Do you want a government agency to have sweeping search and detention rights with cause or warrant? I do not.
As others have noted, anecdotal evidence is the enemy of reason when cases of actual terrorist attack are so infrequent versus the frequent antiterrorist measures taken "at" you.
Police states are notoriously unsafe. While they may keep you safe from independent criminals, your risk of being victimized by the government itself goes way up.
Even if your premise is valid, do you believe the people at U.S. airports are "anti-terrorist teams"?
Dozens of articles refute the usefulness of the TSA, some referring to real anti-terrorist teams like Israeli ones (see some below, I can't find the best one).
Even if, like yourself, you want real security, you shouldn't like the TSA.
I'm not an U.S. citizen nor do I live there, but from the outside (plus some experiences by relatives and being shoe-searched on American Airlines) it doesn't look good at all.
I do find it silly, however, that these teams are supposedly a devision of the "Transit Security Administration".