No matter how far in advance they are able to stop these patsies from committing "terrorist" acts (that which gives them a license to do whatever they want around the world), they are always talking about "security failures". What is a security failure? Well in this context it would be if someone were actually able to commit a "terrorist attack" without being stopped before hand. That would be a security failure. Clearly that hasn't been the case over the last several months, as whether it was the underwear bomber or jihad Jane, and now the times square patsy, they all were all "stopped" from committing the act before it happened, meaning it was a security SUCCESS!!! It means that something within the system prevented it from happening, whether it was just people noticing the operatives in action, or cameras that clued in on their well acted suspicious behavior. 

Instead of successfully following through on any of these false flag ops, so not to provide fodder for the controlled opposition (token conspiracy theorists and their T-shirt businesses), the new tried and true way of mindfuking the populous is to simply set up a patsy, bust them before they do anything, then call it a security failure, even though you were able to catch them and prevent anything from happening. Because we are so far detached from the logical faculties that got us to this high point of civilization we will simply accept the moronic lines of reasoning that we need more disproportional regimentation to ensure our own security, even though that security hasn't been compromised at all, well not in the sense that we have been told. Indeed now we are less secure in that the terrorists will be able to see us walking down times square...