Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on August 11, 2006, 09:16:32 AM
-
Since the other thread is focusing on the attack itself, I thought I might start a second thread for talking about the efficacy of the new restrictions that are being implemented in response to the UK bomb scare.
1. All carry on luggage in the UK is now prohibited.
2 All liquids are banned in the US.
3. Canada announced this morning that they are preparing to follow the UK's lead.
4. Secondary security screens in the US are being rolled out, so you'll be searched at the checkpoint and while boarding.The UK ban covers just about everything. Books, iPods, laptops, all verbotten. If you want to bring baby food because you're travelling w/ a newborn, they'll have you open it and taste it at security.
Conversation points to get started:
1. How effective is this, really? I assert that this offers no real extra security but rewards the terrorists.
2. Is this a temporary measure, or will it become standard?
3. Will the UK's model be adopted here in the US, and if so, when?
-
Only the terrorists and the government are winning. The real war is on the bill of rights... that inconvienent document.
lazs
-
What lazs said.
I've traveled a lot after 9/11, and I only recently started bringing a carry-on bag. Not having one won't be a problem.
-
I never bring a carry on bag, just a laptop case with my laptop, a couple books, a cd case with dvds, an extra battery and soda, and duty free liqour. I better be able to bring that on my flight back to the states.
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
I never bring a carry on bag, just a laptop case with my laptop, a couple books, a cd case with dvds, an extra battery and soda, and duty free liqour. I better be able to bring that on my flight back to the states.
First TV Channel showed Russian passengers who managed to get to Msk from London (they needed assistance from Russian Embassy to get out of UK), and their biggest complain was that "they didn't allow us to take stuff bought in duty-free with us!!! They took it all away!!!". Everyone here understands that it's a real violation of human rights. :D
-
I was flying out of Austin yesterday. Flight was late enough to miss most of the early overreaction and confusion (my cabbie told me they were stopping cabs on the drive up to the terminal for searches and confiscating water bottles). Extra spot search while boarding.
I usually check baggage (easier to get around, often have several suits to pack, etc.), this was just a 2-day business casual trip so I actually carried on for a change. Doh! Decided to check for the return flight so I wouldn't lose my $10 in toiletries. No biggie. In fact, I think carry on is generally another bane to air travel, causing extra delays boarding and unboarding as people try to stuff all their oversized big bags of crap in the overhead bins. Net improvement for my flying experience with this (YMMV).
A three hour delay. Flying out of O'Hare that's typical -- whether it's a national security emergency or a raincloud sighted somewhere in Nothern Wisconsin or Western Iowa. I totally screwed myself though. All flights specifically to Chicago were under "special delay status" likely related to the local drizzle as well as the liquid bombing threat. Swapped flights to an earlier one, only to find my original one leaving an hour before the one I switched to -- ah well.
Flying sucks, BTW :)
Charon
-
Been flying commercial for about 40 years, back then it was just boring, but over the years the security has become a pain in the butt, starting with the cuban hijackers.
Took a trip to Virginia from Pittsburgh 2 weeks ago to see my nephews new 36ft boat, i drove, much better, took longer but if you get hungry you can stop and get a good meal, see the scenery, talk to the truckers on CB, i went through Wash DC and looked at the monuments.
i will never fly again if i can help it.
PS, the food and drinks in the airports are way overpriced.
-
Now that I've started the thread, I'll turn off my diplomatic tone. These rules are asinine and just about guaranteed to kill the airlines.
Say, I wonder if this plot was paid for by the VLJ proponents.... :D
-
Unlike the restrictions placed after 9/11 (box cutters, scissors, knives, etc) that were later relaxed because of better screening and re-enforced cockpit doors, I don't really see how these "liquid" restrictions can ever be relaxed.
Unless someone comes up with a bio-scanner to detect liquid explosives, how can we ever let someone bring a container of liquid onto a plane again? How can we ever neutralize this threat without banning the carry-on items?
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Unlike the restrictions placed after 9/11 (box cutters, scissors, knives, etc) that were later relaxed because of better screening and re-enforced cockpit doors, I don't really see how these "liquid" restrictions can ever be relaxed.
This "bio-scanner" is called a dog.
Anyway, will they take away my bottle of Maalox on a long flight?... I always have some atacid with me, it's good that antacids are also produced in pills.
-
As long as body cavities remain, er, 'unplugged', the "liquid threat" remains.
-
So far all I've seen is whining about how put out you all are.
So, what are your suggestions? Exactly what do you feel should be done about airport / aircraft security for commercial operations? Come on, lets see some suggestions instead of complaints. How are you "going to do it better"?
-
Maverick, you're OK with books and music being forbidden? I gather that by your use of the word 'whine'.
I'd say, and it's probably not popular, but I'd say "just deal with it." Don't overreact, don't freak out about this stuff, just do your best without screwing up the very liberties we hold dear.
More people die on the road every day than died in the 9/11 attacks. While absolutely terrible, what's even worse is how our rights have been systematically removed since. The reaction has essentially handed pieces of victory to the folks attacking us.
How would I handle this threat? Brief security on the threat and tell them to be vigilant. Don't create 'zero tolerance' rules that hurt everyone and short circuit judgement, allow them to do their jobs. Tell them about the liquid explosives threat so it's on their radar, arrest the folks MI5 & Scottland yard and whatnot have surveilled, and keep living life. Huddling in a corner weeping is not the right answer.
-
If you aren't taking any risks, you aren't living. Sheeple don't seem to get that.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
This "bio-scanner" is called a dog.
forgive ignorance
is dog able to smell if you hide something in your ass?
i bet somone can smuggle on board chemicals hided inside him
Are watches banned too?
Damm you MacGyver!!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Maverick, you're OK with books and music being forbidden? I gather that by your use of the word 'whine'.
I'd say, and it's probably not popular, but I'd say "just deal with it." Don't overreact, don't freak out about this stuff, just do your best without screwing up the very liberties we hold dear.
More people die on the road every day than died in the 9/11 attacks. While absolutely terrible, what's even worse is how our rights have been systematically removed since. The reaction has essentially handed pieces of victory to the folks attacking us.
How would I handle this threat? Brief security on the threat and tell them to be vigilant. Don't create 'zero tolerance' rules that hurt everyone and short circuit judgement, allow them to do their jobs. Tell them about the liquid explosives threat so it's on their radar, arrest the folks MI5 & Scottland yard and whatnot have surveilled, and keep living life. Huddling in a corner weeping is not the right answer.
What are you going to brief security about? What are you going to allow on board? What are you going to prohibit on board? As to the arrests, I belive the news said that most are already under arrest. Now if you assume that they got them all, are you really sure that there are not additional cells that the informant just didn't get briefed about? If the bad guys are arrested are you suggesting that all threats have just been eliminated and the threat is all gone?
People dying in traffic is not the point nor is it relevent to the subject at hand. Please stay on topic. As to the number of folks who die as a result of a terrorist act, I believe the current record is about 2700.
FWIW I can understand the bit about liquids and electronic devices. It's too easy to put some kind of detonator on board that way. This includes for explosives that may be on checked luggage. If the checked luggage isn't scanned for explosives and liquids you have just opened the door and leaving an electronic device onboard means you can detonate in flight from the device.
I think banning books is a bad idea and it would be easy to insure the book is not a planted weapon. Scan it and riffle the pages for the inspector. Should be simple enough.
Now getting back to my questions. Please explain what your ideas are to handle the terror threat to commercial air travel. Please be specific. What are you going to do that is different than what is being done?
Please note that I have NOT said anywhere in this or the other thread dealing with the terrorist situation the brits broke, that I approve of the measures. If you say I do that is your assumption and has neither been stated nor implied by myself.
-
How about 'Muslim-only' airplanes?:aok
-
Originally posted by Maverick
What are you going to brief security about? What are you going to allow on board? What are you going to prohibit on board?
Perhaps I was unclear in my message. I will brief security on the threat "Hi guys, a bunch of folks were going to blow up planes using liquid explosives. Here are some pictures and facts related to this. As to what is allowed and prohibited on board, I tell the security "Now that you know this was their plan, there may still be others that were arrested that will want to follow through on this, so use your head. If people are carrying some liquid with them, check it out.
Originally posted by Maverick
People dying in traffic is not the point nor is it relevent to the subject at hand. Please stay on topic.
Overreaction is the topic, and I've stayed on it. Thousands of people die every day in traffic accidents, do you think all cars should be outlawed?
Originally posted by Maverick
FWIW I can understand the bit about liquids and electronic devices. It's too easy to put some kind of detonator on board that way. This includes for explosives that may be on checked luggage. If the checked luggage isn't scanned for explosives and liquids you have just opened the door and leaving an electronic device onboard means you can detonate in flight from the device.
Does this defense of yours protect against... a TIMER? c'mon. You tell me to stay on topic, then moments later we're in Ian Fleming land.
Originally posted by Maverick
Now getting back to my questions. Please explain what your ideas are to handle the terror threat to commercial air travel. Please be specific. What are you going to do that is different than what is being done?
(slowly) Oook, I'll repeat myself. Instead of "AARGH BAN TEH EVERYTINGGGG!!!!11!" I'd brief security then go about life as usual. I can't fix everything myself, first thing I learned as a manager is that micromanaging creates "one size fits none" solutions. Instead of global item bans, I'd trust the people assigned to security to, when equipped with the right information, do their jobs.
-
You said you are going to brief security. I see. They are briefed. Now what are your specifics. Come on. I want to see something different than what they are doing now. You say they are going to check out the liquid. Uh OK how? What else are we going to look for? So far bombs have been disguised as shoes and now liquids are suspect. What are your guidelines for liquids? Since security has been briefed and they are looking for "stuff" they were briefed about, how is this different from what they are already doing?
As to the Ian Flemming bit. Don't you think bringing a binary bomb to be assembled and then detonated on board kinda fits that bill there?
I already told you I think banning books is kinda silly. I suppose you could start a fire with one or maybe give paper cuts but both of those are easily handled on board.
All I'm asking for is what your system would be and how is it going to differ and be less intrusive or at least better than what is going on now?
Until you can show driving deaths are terror related your opinion on it's relevence is not justification for it's inclusion about air traffic terrorism. IMO :p
You mentioned timers so you are ok then without screening checked baggage, correct? Just checking on it.
I already know Laz's answer. Every other passenger is armed and we just shoot the islamics on board. :p
-
I travel a lot in my job. I try not to check in my bags but carry on. We will see cell phones, laptops, car alarm/door lock devises checked in also. For the price of safety I will accomidate. My biggest fear is a bomb being detenated in a busy terminal, that still needs to be addressed. When I walk into a terminal with the long lines, you could set one off being a suicide bomber right there and take out many people. We live in a different world for our freedom now. Get use to it.
-
agree with funked on this one.
Mav... what you gonna do when they learn how to weave and dye C4 to look just like clothes?
What do I suggest? Put sky marshalls on every flight... gee.. the guy is pouring two liquids together and taking his laptop apart and removing some kinda electronics from it and hooking them up to the comound he made and....
I would also allow anyone who had a concealled carry permit or any police officer to carry weapons on board...
It is the lack of freedom that has caused the problem not too much of it.
lazs
-
Laz,
Just to answer your points here.
I believe the C4 issue would be detected by the sniffers used to find explosives. Not sure but I think they are checking for known explosives now.
How is the sky marshal going to observe that if the liquids are in small bottles in the pockets of the perp and he does all the assembly (and detonation) in the john. Oh and the electronics could be the pda in another pocket.
Same for the CCW permit carrying guy. Given that a CCW permit carrier is on the plane, how is the sky marshal going to tell that the ccw person is not the terrorist if they draw a weapon and point it at another passenger. Who's he going to shoot first or does he shoot both the gun person AND the person that the weapon was being pointed at, assuming he can see any of this from the other end of the cabin?
What freedom has been lost in the airport security protocal? Please be specific.
Again I'm not taking a side one way or the other, just trying to find out what plan would satisfy those who don't like the current airport security.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
forgive ignorance
is dog able to smell if you hide something in your ass?
Sure it can.
Smell for dogs is much more important then eyesight for us humans.
Dogs are superior to humans. Seriously. They can't betray, they never talk too much, they understand much more then an average human being, and - yes, they can smell what you swallowed several hours ago.
-
I have no problem with any article I bring on a plane being searched. Why would anyone else have a problem?
I think some people get confused about air travel, or any form of travel for that matter. Its a privilege, not a right.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I think some people get confused about air travel, or any form of travel for that matter. Its a privilege, not a right.
BINGO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:aok
-
The governments and the industry have known about liquid bombs for nearly 20 years. Possibly more.
Research Korean Air Flight 858; that one was a liquid explosive set off by a radio-concealed ignitor right next to the bottle.
We were briefed on this way back then. At the time, the defense was 'shhh.. don't talk about it!'.
They figured there was no acceptable way to combat the threat. Acceptable meaning a method the traveling public would accept. They felt it would mean the death of the industry if necessary measures were taken.
You're seeing most of what they then considered as necessary being finally implemented now.
-
Bye-bye airline industry.
-
The US airline industry isn't going bye-bye. There is no way to replace the 700,000,000 times per year people get from Point A to Point B by airplane.
Let's keep in mind that the investigation in the UK prevented a threat. People at the airport didn't. I don't think anyone objects to other people being thoroughly checked to ensure our safety is enhanced. But that works the same for those other people about us, too.
I think an improved topic would be the instances of non-professionalism by those doing the checking, not overall gripes about rights being violated by checking in general. I've seen plenty of it and that is what annoys me, not the check itself.
Maybe I'm not alone.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The governments and the industry have known about liquid bombs for nearly 20 years. Possibly more.
They don't use liquid explosives for first WTC attack?
-
Originally posted by ramzey
They don't use liquid explosives for first WTC attack?
I was referring to the use of carry-on liquid explosives and accelerators used to bring down aircraft.
The bomb used in the first WTC attack was made of urea pellets, nitroglycerin, sulfuric acid, aluminum azide, magnesium azide, and bottled hydrogen.
KAL 858 was destroyed by a bomb triggered by C4 hidden in a radio placed next to a liquor bottle containing PLX, or Picatinny Liquid Explosive. PLX is a liquid binary explosive, a mixture of 95% nitromethane and 5% ethylene diamine. It is a slightly yellowish liquid that can pass for booze say in a tequila bottle.
-
I fly a lot and personally I think these measures are way overboard.
If the key threat is liquid explosive then simply ban liquids in all baggage and only allow on board beverages bought from vending machines at the gate.
We currently X-ray bags and use dogs for solid explosives the new threat is liquid. The banning of electronic devices is to stop detonators, but with no explosive then the detonator is pointless so why bother ?
Ban all liquids other than from a controlled source and scan for solids as we did before.
The other problem is we are only plugging the threat at one end. You can consider the commercial avaition system as a sealed system with entry at any point giving you access to the whole system. Hence if someone gets on a plane in, say, Greece where security is less than 100%, with a transfer in London to go to the US on a non-US airline then, as they won't be screened in London for the transfer (they are already in the system), all the screening at London departures won't stop them getting explosives on the plane. The system is only being made more secure at one end and hence is no more secure.
This is why US airlines are re-screening ALL passengers at the gate because they don't know where they came from. It is also why ALL passengers doing international transfer through the US have to collect their bags and re-do security.
Examples:-
I recently did 3 trips to Buenes Aires from Santiago. A work tool, which was basically an 8" peice of steel with a shaped flat blade end, had slipped out of it's case into the bottom of my laptop bag during the previous days and I went through security at Santiago 3 times with this without knowing and it never got picked up - and example of piss poor screening.
Now consider I flew home from Chile via the US. Leg 1 landed at Dallas where we collected all our bags, went through customs and immigration and re-did security. One of my hold bags was opened and searched. Leg 2 was on to Boston and then back to Heathrow. The US have created a sealed system within the system. The alternative route would have been Chile to Spain (Madrid) and on to Heathrow. In that scenario I would not have been rechecked in Madrid. IF I had then had another transfer say to New York then I could have simply transfered to the next flight unchecked.
The aviation system is only as secure as the weakest link in the system.
After the measures introduced here in UK the Eurostar train pax count went up 10%. My bet is it's people going to Paris or Brussels to catch trans- Atlantic flights from there.
I carry two pieces on usually - my laptop which is my key work tool, and my cameras; both of these I cannot afford to lose. All this is doing is making life difficult and moving the terrorists point of entry.
-
Yep, Sparks, you're right.
-
pigs on every flight
...cant you just wear bladders on your body?
why didnt they do this earlier? it happend over 10 years ago by those North Koreans freaks
Also ..I thought if it was so bad..that they would light forest fires all over...hasnt happened
-
so, what do we do when they drop a suitcase of explosives onto a passing train?
-
ban suitcases of corse
-
Per a phone conversation with AA last night, the only thing that's changed on domistic flights is the liquid/gel thing. Of course, this is subject to change on a moments notice.
The TSA is a joke. It was a smokescreen by the idiot Bush which was extremely poorly planned and executed. For the few people out there that will get just how poorly it was tossed out, picture being a pilot (doesn't matter if you're a PPL or ATP) and having one of those unskilled, unschooled minimum wage twits walking up to you and saying "Hand over your pilot's license." Do not pass go, no questions asked. At first you couldn't even appeal it. Now at least you can, but you'd still be without your license during the process.
Soon as I win the big lottery I'm picking up either a PC-12 or King Air and the TSA can kiss my shiney metal hiney.
-
the liquid bomb threat is not new.
it was used before but th plane survived the explosion because some unlucky guy was sitting on the seat where the bomb was and took the full force of the explosion,also the seat he was in was not in its usual configeration so was not in a critical place of the plane where it useualy was.
thia threat has been know about for a long time.
-
I forsee mandatory anesthesia for all passengers very soon. No one makes any trouble, and they can even cram more people on the plane that way. Win!
-
Originally posted by takeda
I forsee mandatory anesthesia for all passengers very soon. No one makes any trouble, and they can even cram more people on the plane that way. Win!
frankly, i'd prefer that to sitting in between 2 guys of the bouncer variety for 3 hours.
-
The funny twist is that I've read someone on another board that said he'd think twice before taking a flight if he saw someone clutching a bottle of water like it was gold. The thing is that bottle of waters are rapidly becoming like gold when they start denying you drinks on board unless you're willing to fork over what amounts to more than a fair amount of profit to buy a drink. The prices they want for food and water just seems like they're gouging to me. Heck, an American Airlines stewardess even had the gall to tell me to go fly first class next time if I wanted some water. Seems things will just get worse for no real difference to the terrorists.
However, to be more on subject wrt this thread -- I find it silly that if you have a baby, you can fly with liquids, if the determination is that liquids is a source of evil on flights. These people are willing to throw away their lives, what's the big deal about finding/making a baby and lugging it about to facilitate liquid transport rights. Seems like that would also be an easily sacrificed item in these people's mind.
-
The restriction on hand luggage is being lifted today/tomorrow depending on the airport.
Link (http://www.24dash.com/content/news/viewNews.php?navID=7&newsID=9189)
-
Originally posted by Khyron
The funny twist is that I've read someone on another board that said he'd think twice before taking a flight if he saw someone clutching a bottle of water like it was gold. The thing is that bottle of waters are rapidly becoming like gold when they start denying you drinks on board unless you're willing to fork over what amounts to more than a fair amount of profit to buy a drink. The prices they want for food and water just seems like they're gouging to me. Heck, an American Airlines stewardess even had the gall to tell me to go fly first class next time if I wanted some water. Seems things will just get worse for no real difference to the terrorists.
However, to be more on subject wrt this thread -- I find it silly that if you have a baby, you can fly with liquids, if the determination is that liquids is a source of evil on flights. These people are willing to throw away their lives, what's the big deal about finding/making a baby and lugging it about to facilitate liquid transport rights. Seems like that would also be an easily sacrificed item in these people's mind.
Thats why I say make the baby drink a fair sized portion of the formula. An adult could concievably choke liquid explosives down. But the baby would show right away something is up, either by spitting it all back up. Or going belly up and buying the farm soon after and recieving his 72 virgins.
-
mav... freedoms? I don't believe I mentioned freedoms being lost but... I think that being searched without cause and asked to take off my shoes is a lost freedom.
It is mostly that airports are so inconvienient that I don't use em anymore.. Now we are simply talking about making them even more inconvienient.
The terrorists have won so far as I am concerned... It is too inconvienient and too oppressive an atmosphere at airports for me.... just seeing passengers being searched gives me the creeps.
lazs
-
Luggage is a pain in the ass. Unless I'm bringing camping gear, my carry on bag is all that I ever bring.
I can live with liquids being banned. But banning mp3 players cameras and phones is going to make traveling by air suck so much more. Because it means luggage check, luggage wait, luggage lost.
-
Without preventing these attacks here's how I see it going down over time. Plane bombings, shopping mall bombings, school bombings proliferate. Americans get fed up and start killing muslims in America. Muslims fight back, civil war ensues. What are the possible outcomes?
-
LOL
-
Originally posted by Suave
LOL
What? You think it silly that terrorists would continue the war they are currently waging in Iraq and have already hit America with as well as other European nations?
Maybe you figure they'll get tired of blowing up civilians?
Maybe I don't know what it is you find humorous?
-
It's hilarious how quickly Americans will toss their freedoms aside in exchange for security, and piss poor security at that.
The terrorists are probably laughing their tulips off.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's hilarious how quickly Americans will toss their freedoms aside in exchange for security, and piss poor security at that.
The terrorists are probably laughing their tulips off.
I'm not advocating tighter security, just making an observation about where we're headed if we are unsuccessful in preventing further attacks.
If it were up to me I'd drop my guard altogether if it meant bringing the enemy out in the open. We can survive their worst I believe. The gloves come off at that point however.
-
I think we can survive their worst without treating our own like criminals.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I think we can survive their worst without treating our own like criminals.
History doesn't bear that out. Perhaps you think us morally superior to those who have gone before? Why do you think the Japanese were rounded up at the beginning of our involvement in WWII? I think it was for their protection as much as any other reason.
-
I had hoped that we might have learned from our past mistakes and if that's moral superiority, so be it. We did a great injustice to the Japanese Americans.
I find it rather disgusting that someone could advocate repeating it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I had hoped that we might have learned from our past mistakes and if that's moral superiority, so be it. We did a great injustice to the Japanese Americans.
I find it rather disgusting that someone could advocate repeating it.
You say that from the perspective of not knowing what would have happened had we not done so.
I don't think it's a stretch to believe there will be widespread retaliations against muslims should shopping malls and schools become the targets of bombers. Ask yourself how you would feel if your kids were blown to bits in a school and you watched muslims celebrating on television. I think you'd be out for blood and any muslim would do. If not you, many would.
-
I think I'm every bit as prescient as yourself. :aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I think I'm every bit as prescient as yourself. :aok
I judge based on observation of history. Your prescience is based on an altrusim that hasn't existed in the face of death and destruction in your homeland.
-
As far as I'm concerned, the internment of Americans is destruction of my homeland.
-
Welp Sandy,
The question I asked Chairboy I now ask of you. What are you going to do about security at airports?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
As far as I'm concerned, the internment of Americans is destruction of my homeland.
I can understand someone who hasn't experienced their local shopping mall, restaurants, and schools being systematically blown up by religious zealots feeling that way and I agree with you. However, a reality of the latter will probably change our minds.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Welp Sandy,
The question I asked Chairboy I now ask of you. What are you going to do about security at airports?
Well, when i answered your question, you ignored it, will you ignore Sandman's answer if he gives you one?
-
Originally posted by lukster
I can understand someone who hasn't experienced their local shopping mall, restaurants, and schools being systematically blown up by religious zealots feeling that way and I agree with you. However, a reality of the latter will probably change our minds.
Are you saying that it would be ok? The internment camps, that is?
-
well... this is a highly unusual event....
I agree with sandie.
If a sky marshal cant figure out who the bad guys are and when they are about to do something bad... we probly can't stop em by any means.
There are lots of ways to kill a whole bunch of folks. It is just the risk we take.
I don't want to be randomly searched.
lazs
-
I will take the .00001% chance of being blown up over the atlantic as long as I can take my laptop and ipod on my person. So no luggage handler steals them, or hell some Homeland Security goon.
-
Who is lukster ? Nuke ?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Are you saying that it would be ok? The internment camps, that is?
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that muslims that may not be involved in terrorism will be killed or run out of this country if we are unsuccessful in derailing those who are currently blowing up civilians all around the world. I don't think that's ok either btw in case you were wondering.
Hide your head in sand if you will but that won't change a thing.
-
I'm guessing we won't hear any complaints from those complaining about being inconvenienced at the airport after the next terrorist attack about how our government should have protected us ?
Some claim they are willing to pay that price for freedom. Some of those making this claim also tout how much of a disaster this very similar situation is in Iraq. Makes it kinda hard for me to take them seriously.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, when i answered your question, you ignored it, will you ignore Sandman's answer if he gives you one?
Chair,
I answered your post and asked for additional clarification. You didn't respond to it. Either that or I missed your response. Like I said in my response to you, briefing the security folks isn't a strategy. What are the security folks going to do that is different than what they were / are doing?
If you brief them about liquids, how is that going to stop the liquids from getting on board? What are they going to do? Test all liquids? How long do you think it will take to get through security if they do? Is your solution the same as what is being done now, simply ban most liquids on carry on bags? If the prospective passenger refuses to allow security to look at a bottle in their carry on will your security then allow the passenger to board with the liquid? Will they require the passenger to submit to the search?
-
Originally posted by Suave
Who is lukster ? Nuke ?
AKIron.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Welp Sandy,
The question I asked Chairboy I now ask of you. What are you going to do about security at airports?
I'd go right back to the security of Sept. 10th 2001.
No one is going to hijack an airplane in this country. The passengers will feed them their own balls.
-
Sandy,
How is that going to be of any use to the passengers of the planes the brit terrorists were going to hit? They didn't intend to hijack, just blow them up in the air.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Sandy,
How is that going to be of any use to the passengers of the planes the brit terrorists were going to hit? They didn't intend to hijack, just blow them up in the air.
I think he's already said losses are acceptable if necessary to preseve freedom. I happen to agree but I find it hypocritical to express this view while bemoaning Iraq as a disaster.
-
The only way to keep from losing aircraft is to keep them on the ground.
Freedom has its risks.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I think he's already said losses are acceptable if necessary to preseve freedom. I happen to agree but I find it hypocritical to express this view while bemoaning Iraq as a disaster.
Iraqis are not my concern.
-
I was hijacked in a 172 once by a DE, on a checkride no less.
she was over 60 years old too, how embarassing
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Iraqis are not my concern.
Oil is and therefore Kuwait was.
-
So in other words Sandy, a passenger should just roll the dice and see if they make it to their destination.
How many losses are acceptable in your opinion?
-
Kuwaitis are not my concern either.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
So in other words Sandy, a passenger should just roll the dice and see if they make it to their destination.
The odds are better than the freeway.
-
Freedom isn't won by ignoring some homicidal maniacs and letting them have their way with you. It is by kicking the living s*** out of those that would deny you.
-
Freedom also cannot be gained by letting some moron from the TSA poke and prod and rifle through your stuff.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The odds are better than the freeway.
That's a non answer Sandy and I'm surprised. I figured you for more than platitudes here. What's your next statement, life's a beotch and then you die?
-
I don't have time to read all this I am going to work.....
And I am a TSA screener. Each I am facing 1000's of passagers who need to get to their planes. And I have to get it right each time, 365 days a year..... The bad guys only have to beat me once.
If anyone would like to trade jobs for a few days let me know. (working 16 hr. days right now) A few days in my shoes and maybe you would be a little nicer to that security screener at your airport.
CAVALRY
-
Originally posted by Maverick
That's a non answer Sandy and I'm surprised. I figured you for more than platitudes here. What's your next statement, life's a beotch and then you die?
It was a ridiculous question.
-
Originally posted by CAV
I don't have time to read all this I am going to work.....
And I am a TSA screener. Each I am facing 1000's of passagers who need to get to their planes. And I have to get it right each time, 365 days a year..... The bad guys only have to beat me once.
If anyone would like to trade jobs for a few days let me know. (working 16 hr. days right now) A few days in my shoes and maybe you would be a little nicer to that security screener at your airport.
CAVALRY
If you don't like it, find another job.
You don't have to like your job, and we don't have to like you for doing it.
-
Maverick, like I said, I would trust people like CAV to use good judgement.
The difference between you and me is that I do not think that central management from big government can produce one size fits all solutions. Instead of trying to micromanage the whole situation, give security the staffing they need to be confident and let them do what they're hired to do.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Freedom also cannot be gained by letting some moron from the TSA poke and prod and rifle through your stuff.
No argument from me. I think they intend that to protect the planes (private property btw) and your life.
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Maverick, like I said, I would trust people like CAV to use good judgement.
The difference between you and me is that I do not think that central management from big government can produce one size fits all solutions. Instead of trying to micromanage the whole situation, give security the staffing they need to be confident and let them do what they're hired to do.
Sounds like big government to me. Why not let the airlines provide their own security?
-
I've been singled out for special searches on four separate occasions.
Once leaving London for Tel Aviv...and again upon my arrival in Israel.
The third occasion was when I left Ben Gurion Airport for Cairo...searched in Cairo...and again before boarding a flight from Aswan back to Cairo.
Must have been my shifty, inbred look.
I didn't complain about it. That's a different world. Both nations build their security plans with something more substantial than the fairy dust of high-sounding platitudes. If they didn't, people would die.
It's been decades since there was a successful hi-jacking of an Israeli airliner.
-
Some of the replys here are just down right funny. In a sick sort of way.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
It's been decades since there was a successful hi-jacking of an Israeli airliner.
Oh yeah... El Al, the model of airline efficiency.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Maverick, like I said, I would trust people like CAV to use good judgement.
The difference between you and me is that I do not think that central management from big government can produce one size fits all solutions. Instead of trying to micromanage the whole situation, give security the staffing they need to be confident and let them do what they're hired to do.
Ok here,
I don't think that I am making myself clear. What I am asking for is what would YOUR vision of airport security be here. What kind of system would you devise to stop terrorists from downing rather expensive planes and losing passengers? How would it differ from what is currently going on?
What you posted above is a nice collection of words but they are rather lacking in substance.
-
With respect, I've already outlined my system. I suspect that you don't grok it because I'm not advocating some technical or large scale change. In fact, that's true, I think that the big changes that the government folks keep trying to push downstream are a mistake.
DON'T:
Ban liquids
Ban nail cutters
etc
DO:
Let the security folks use their best judgement
That's RIGHT, I'm advocating doing LESS.
That's what I've said over and over and over and over, it is my hope that my use of capitalization will make it clear enough this time.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
DO:
Let the security folks use their best judgement
Racial profiling?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Racial profiling?
Interesting you said that.
I can't think of the last time a white male 19- to say oh 30 hijacked and blew up a plane. Or , ran them into buildings for that matter. At least not in the US. I'll google tho and see if I can find some.
-
If you don't like it, find another job. You don't have to like your job, and we don't have to like you for doing it.
The thing is I do like my job. Before this I was in the Army 22yrs and loved that one too.
As for the 2nd part.... The best TSA screeners do care if you like us or not, we have a job to do. If may not be the best system, but we have to play by the rules we are given.
Beside one the best parts of the job is walking some "nut job" 1st class flyer back to the doors of the airport.
And say...
"The bus station is down town.... Have a nice day.
CAVALRY
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I think some people get confused about air travel, or any form of travel for that matter. Its a privilege, not a right.
Is this not a true statement?
-
Originally posted by CAV
The thing is I do like my job. Before this I was in the Army 22yrs and loved that one too.
As for the 2nd part.... The best TSA screeners do care if you like us or not, we have a job to do. If may not be the best system, but we have to play by the rules we are given.
Beside one the best parts of the job is walking some "nut job" 1st class flyer back to the doors of the airport.
And say...
"The bus station is down town.... Have a nice day.
CAVALRY
I should apologize Cav. My frustration should not be directed at you personally.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Interesting you said that.
I can't think of the last time a white male 19- to say oh 30 hijacked and blew up a plane. Or , ran them into buildings for that matter. At least not in the US. I'll google tho and see if I can find some.
Short memory?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/06/tampa.crash/index.html
I'll give you a little slack since he came in under the age parameters you set.
-
Originally posted by jigsaw
Short memory?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/06/tampa.crash/index.html
I'll give you a little slack since he came in under the age parameters you set.
Hmm...well not really what I was looking for...but I'll give ya that one.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
I think some people get confused about air travel, or any form of travel for that matter. Its a privilege, not a right.
Is this not a true statement?
Of course it's not a true statement. Imprisonment is the lack of the right to travel.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
With respect, I've already outlined my system. I suspect that you don't grok it because I'm not advocating some technical or large scale change. In fact, that's true, I think that the big changes that the government folks keep trying to push downstream are a mistake.
DON'T:
Ban liquids
Ban nail cutters
etc
DO:
Let the security folks use their best judgement
That's RIGHT, I'm advocating doing LESS.
That's what I've said over and over and over and over, it is my hope that my use of capitalization will make it clear enough this time.
Ok...what would be the odds of detecting THIS:
Qaeda's latest weapon is 'mother and child' suicide bombers
London, Aug 14: Authorities in Britain are now searching for mother and babies in their war against terror.
Officials said baby boomers were among those arrested over the plot to massacre thousands of passengers mid-air on board transatlantic flights originating from Heathrow, late last week.
Among the persons under the scanner were a husband and wife with six-month-old infant.
Officials said they now feared that fanatical mothers ready to sacrifice themselves along with their infants had joined secret al Qaeda cells in Britain.
http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?action=fullnews&id=6877
-
Originally posted by Suave
Of course it's not a true statement. Imprisonment is the lack of the right to travel.
What?
-
Just wondering, tampoons and other girly stuff is banned from taking on board?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
With respect, I've already outlined my system. I suspect that you don't grok it because I'm not advocating some technical or large scale change. In fact, that's true, I think that the big changes that the government folks keep trying to push downstream are a mistake.
DON'T:
Ban liquids
Ban nail cutters
etc
DO:
Let the security folks use their best judgement
That's RIGHT, I'm advocating doing LESS.
That's what I've said over and over and over and over, it is my hope that my use of capitalization will make it clear enough this time.
Ok here now we have something to discuss.
You want to allow liquids nail cutters etc. on the plane. Can you explain how that is going to help security here?
This statement: "Let the security folks use their best judgement" really is a null statement. If you were to give that statement to me as a TSA employee I'd be asking you exactly what you mean. "Best Judgement" about what? Am i supposed to decide whether to allow certian people to have certain items based on what? How they look? How they act? What object are subject "to my judgement"?
What I'm trying to explain is that there is no uniformity to your "system" and neither the passengers nor the security folks will have any reasonable expectation as to what to expect. It will be a crap shoot for the passenger as to what they can bring as carry on, checked baggage whatever. It will also vary from checker to checker much less air port to airport.
You are going to do less. OK here is the same kind of question I asked Sandy and he ignored. How many aircraft are you willing to lose before your comfort zone is compromised? If you are going to make the aircraft open to the terrorists, exactly who's freedom have you enhanced?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Ok...what would be the odds of detecting THIS:
http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?action=fullnews&id=6877
Maybe it wouldn't, maybe it would. You know what else wouldn't? Banning liquids.
By implementing super specific rules like this, you create the illusion of safety and turn off the interogative part of the brain in the TSA folks.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Ok here now we have something to discuss.
You want to allow liquids nail cutters etc. on the plane. Can you explain how that is going to help security here?
First, read my post immediately above this. Second, I'm under as much obligation to explain why it would help security as you are to explain why you deserve first amendment rights. There are some things in life that don't need an excuse.
-
I read your post that you pointed out however it wasn't germain to the discussion I was trying to have with you. It didn't explain what you thought was adequate security.
Ok, so you aren't willing or able to have a discussion about your position. You should have just said that to begin with.
-
So you're assuming a TSA employee can indentify a peroxide-based bomb in a bottle of baby milk? Machines can't even do that yet-- There are THOUSANDS of TSA employees...they need guidelines to go by, or there will be thousands of standards. (alas, NONE of which will be "Muslims..YOUR line is over THERE.")
-
From what I've read, acetone peroxide has a distinctive smell.
-
The real problem is that adult decision making has been replaced by rules and regulations.
-
Making decisions, adult or otherwise, without consistency accross the board does not give the traveling public a stable, predictable situation. If you provide a chaotic range of choices all based on individual "adult decisions" you will have even more problems with the traveling public having objections to what is in reality a chaotic situation. It has to be equal all accross the board or you open up the entire system to complaints of favoritism, racial predjudice and so on. Some of those complaints will result in legal action with numerous suits. It has to be consistent accross the country and as equal for all as you can make it.
Rules and regulations that are the same make for less stress for those involved on both sides of the system. Kind of like traffic laws and regulations instead of relying on the operator to make an "adult decision" about which side of the road they will drive on and at what speed they decide.
-
The only way to have a stable secure situation is to have a room where people disrobe and get cavity searched and then are issued jumpsuits and paper slippers before they get on the plane. They could probly get the same company that makes prison jumpsuits to make em.
Anything less is an illusion of security so far as passengers are concerned.
When it comes to rockets fired at planes..... I suppose that we will have to have unwarrranted searches of homes within 50 miles of airports as a precaution.
lazs
-
Bruce Schneier said it well in his op-ed:
Hours-long waits in the security line. Ridiculous prohibitions on what you can carry onboard. Last week's foiling of a major terrorist plot and the subsequent airport security graphically illustrates the difference between effective security and security theater.
None of the airplane security measures implemented because of 9/11 -- no-fly lists, secondary screening, prohibitions against pocket knives and corkscrews -- had anything to do with last week's arrests. And they wouldn't have prevented the planned attacks, had the terrorists not been arrested. A national ID card wouldn't have made a difference, either.
Instead, the arrests are a victory for old-fashioned intelligence and investigation. Details are still secret, but police in at least two countries were watching the terrorists for a long time. They followed leads, figured out who was talking to whom, and slowly pieced together both the network and the plot.
The new airplane security measures focus on that plot, because authorities believe they have not captured everyone involved. It's reasonable to assume that a few lone plotters, knowing their compatriots are in jail and fearing their own arrest, would try to finish the job on their own. The authorities are not being public with the details -- much of the "explosive liquid" story doesn't hang together -- but the excessive security measures seem prudent.
But only temporarily. Banning box cutters since 9/11, or taking off our shoes since Richard Reid, has not made us any safer. And a long-term prohibition against liquid carry-ons won't make us safer, either. It's not just that there are ways around the rules, it's that focusing on tactics is a losing proposition.
It's easy to defend against what the terrorists planned last time, but it's shortsighted. If we spend billions fielding liquid-analysis machines in airports and the terrorists use solid explosives, we've wasted our money. If they target shopping malls, we've wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets -- stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people before airport security -- and too many ways to kill people.
Security measures that require us to guess correctly don't work, because invariably we will guess wrong. It's not security, it's security theater: measures designed to make us feel safer but not actually safer.
Airport security is the last line of defense, and not a very good one at that. Sure, it'll catch the sloppy and the stupid -- and that's a good enough reason not to do away with it entirely -- but it won't catch a well-planned plot. We can't keep weapons out of prisons; we can't possibly keep them off airplanes.
The goal of a terrorist is to cause terror. Last week's arrests demonstrate how real security doesn't focus on possible terrorist tactics, but on the terrorists themselves. It's a victory for intelligence and investigation, and a dramatic demonstration of how investments in these areas pay off.
And if you want to know what you can do to help? Don't be terrorized. They terrorize more of us if they kill some of us, but the dead are beside the point. If we give in to fear, the terrorists achieve their goal even if they were arrested. If we refuse to be terrorized, then they lose -- even if their attacks succeed.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
When it comes to rockets fired at planes..... I suppose that we will have to have unwarrranted searches of homes within 50 miles of airports as a precaution.
lazs
It could easily come to that if the terrorists start shooting AA missiles at planes taking off from airports like they did in the 80's. There are missles with sonic triggers that are designed to terrorize airfields. So that they can be in unmanned and disguised positions. And terrorists have used them before. They've also used more primitive rpg's. I think both the instances I'm thinking of occured in Paris.
In that scenario it would be perfectly reasonable for the law enforcers to search the entire neighborhood. As long as it's reactive, and not a standard preventative proceedure.
-
so you agree that warantless searches of entire neighborhoods would be a "perfectly reasonable" thing to do?
What about that inconvienient document called the constitution and the bill of rights?
lazs
-
Well laz they would be searching for people who are at war with my country, shooting missiles out of my neighborhood. This is warfare in the very literal sense, not the polical buzzward BS. Not only would I condone it, I'd probably try to weasel in on some of the action.
-
Besides I would consider anti aircraft artillery being fired from my vicinity probable cause, lol.
-
So all that's needed to bypass the constitution is to say that someone is at war with your country? I'm not certain I agree with that.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So all that's needed to bypass the constitution is to say that someone is at war with your country? I'm not certain I agree with that.
It's certainly nothing new. Lincoln may have been the worst violator of our constitution. I don't like it much either. Maybe it's time to get the government out of the business of protecting our transportation.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
So you're assuming a TSA employee can indentify a peroxide-based bomb in a bottle of baby milk? Machines can't even do that yet-- There are THOUSANDS of TSA employees...they need guidelines to go by, or there will be thousands of standards. (alas, NONE of which will be "Muslims..YOUR line is over THERE.")
Even if you put in a Muslim line... what happens if they simply don't claim to be a Muslim? A lie to an infidel is not a lie.
-
Originally posted by lukster
It's certainly nothing new. Lincoln may have been the worst violator of our constitution. I don't like it much either. Maybe it's time to get the government out of the business of protecting our transportation.
It is with a sour taste in my mouth and a churning, ulcer-like feeling in my stomach that I find myself agreeing with lukster.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
It is with a sour taste in my mouth and a churning, ulcer-like feeling in my stomach that I find myself agreeing with lukster.
It'll get easier. :p
-
Let the security folks use their best judgement That's RIGHT, I'm advocating doing LESS.
You would not like that. I know at my airport the first thing me and my follow TSA screeners would do is .... Ban carry-on bags. They are the reason you have long lines at the checkpoint. And you would not beleave the things we see in the carry-on bags.
CAVALRY
-
Cav,
You don't understand. The screeners are to use their best judgement as long as it agrees with and doesn't inconvenience Chairboy as well as a few others.
-
Maverick, with respect, I think it's possible that I have a higher regard for the folks who do the tough job of balancing security and convenience than you do. When I travel, I make a point of thanking the TSA folks for their hard work after I've completed the checkpoint because it's an otherwise thankless task that puts them in the firing line from annoyed travelers every day.
You're free to assume that I'm one of the rude folks that bitches incessantly about how "I'm going to miss my flight" and so on, but that's just not accurate. I travel with a book and plan accordingly. Change what you can, accept what you can't, and you'll live a lot longer.
-
Chaiboy,
Kudos to you for planning ahead for the security situation. I also got there well ahead of time but my flying days are about over since I take my house with me wherever I go. Unless I go overseas again I doubt I'll fly commercial at all.
I have been arguing as I have simply because I have been in the position of working security at an installation and had to do the searches. Hell you can't go into the Police Station anymore without being searched. Having had a desk officer shot by a person just walking in made that change. A grenade thrown at the front of the station ended up changing the architecture of the building as well. A lot of glass went away and what is left is the resistant type.
What I have found is that the public can tollerate a consistent policy of security but if you have changes in it every place you go or every time you go to the same place it really cranks up the irritability factor.
I really dislike the need for the security we have but I don't blame the govt., TSA, or even the airport. I blame the folks who decided that aircraft and passengers are just another tool to use to make their political (or religious) statements.
-
so suave... you see no potential for abuse in warrantless searches of homes?
Also... what would need to happen to trigger such a move by the government that you would approve of?
Would missles have to have been fired or.... would it be good enough for you if the government told you that they had uncovered a plot to launch em... or... maybe just the possibility?
The possibility exists now. Do you believe that your government is shirking its duty by not doing warrentless house to house searches at this very moment?
To me.. a warrant would entail reasonable cause and.... would be specific as to what was being serched for.... At least in my country... for instance... if they were searching for a rocket launcher and found an unregestered firearm or bag of pot in a small box.. they would have to ignore it.
I have no idea how it works in your country but we have an amendment that covers such things.
lazs
-
Do some of you that I read here , consider this security stuff a violation of your constitutinal rights?
If the airline just did it on thier own instead of government mandating it , would you still think it?
Seems from what I am reading here , and correct me please (i know you will) but....
If I own a company and provide a service , and have certain rules you must follow to use that service , then I am within my right as owner of that company to make you or simply not let you use that service.
Is this right?
If so , then why is this all such a big deal? You feel violated or something? SO what if you can't bring water on the plane. They're gonna give ya some when ya take off.
Just seems like a bunch of whinning over "I can't have my way and it's all about me and screw the rest"
Maybe I'm just to easy.
-
Laz,
Items of they type you mentioned (not the firearm, unless it was the area a convicted felon occupied) that are discovered in the process of serving a valid search warrant are not ignored. They were discovered ancillary to the original warrant search and are still illegal items. The warrant may then be expanded by contacting the judge and explaining the circumstances and having an ammendment issued to the original warrant based on new or additional reasonable suspician of further illegal activities based on the found items.
-
Bruce Schneier wrote an other insightful piece on the current situation that is much more eloquent than me:
Another thought experiment: Imagine for a moment that the British government arrested the 23 suspects without fanfare. Imagine that the TSA and its European counterparts didn't engage in pointless airline-security measures like banning liquids. And imagine that the press didn't write about it endlessly, and that the politicians didn't use the event to remind us all how scared we should be. If we'd reacted that way, then the terrorists would have truly failed.
It's time we calm down and fight terror with antiterror. This does not mean that we simply roll over and accept terrorism. There are things our government can and should do to fight terrorism, most of them involving intelligence and investigation -- and not focusing on specific plots.
But our job is to remain steadfast in the face of terror, to refuse to be terrorized. Our job is to not panic every time two Muslims stand together checking their watches. There are approximately 1 billion Muslims in the world, a large percentage of them not Arab, and about 320 million Arabs in the Middle East, the overwhelming majority of them not terrorists. Our job is to think critically and rationally, and to ignore the cacophony of other interests trying to use terrorism to advance political careers or increase a television show's viewership.
-
In earlier posts here, I've advocated getting away from specific lists (like "don't allow liquids") because I said that it creates a false sense of security and focuses attention on a very small area and takes attention away from evaluating the larger situation.
Some folks here have argued with me that the "list of forbidden items" is great, and that I'm some sort of pinko commie for suggesting that we train security personel to use critical thinking. Well, that's a slight paraphrase, but essentially the case.
Here's a recent news story that demonstrates the danger of the focused, tunnel vision approach that the current "list of forbidden items" creates:
http://newsinfo.inq7.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=18380
This gentleman was able to transport and assemble C4 bombs despite the upgraded security following the liquid bomb threat.
His recommendations are not "expand the list of forbidden items", it's almost word for word what I've been saying.
-
mnav... that simply makes it worse... under the guise of looking for missle launchers the government could just about search any house they wanted to and cause as much grief and damage as they liked.
This is not the kind of America I want to live in.
lazs