BA 223 - What the F*ck is going on?

dahamsta

well I'd trust the professionals to be looking after security and blame the terrorists for taking away some of my freedoms as a price for my safety-yes

These would be the self-same professionals that:

- knew about September 11 months before it happened?
- released over a hundred "enemy combatants" from Guantanamo Bay without charge?
- employed someone arrested for DWI while on duty as their TSA chief in Dulles Airport?

Would you have relaxed restrictions on where you could park in town centres in NI at the height of the troubles there for instance when the IRA was blowing them up

I wasn't aware that you could be arrested without probably cause and held without access to legal representation or your family at the height of the troubles. Not legally anyway.

adam

gandalf

OK then we are going slightly off topic but think about this please.

You are on a flight and it is hijacked. Do you sit in your seat and wait to see what happens are do you take action. I know myself I would go on the offensive.

Now lets say your a group of terrorists and you know theres a sky marshall on board. You would get one of your number to try and hijack the plane. The Sky Marshall would identify himself (probably by wasting your colleague) and you would jump the Sky Marshall and you can throw away your stanley knifes as you now have a gun

I see that this flight has been delayed again today http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3367551.stm . If I were a terrorist I would be a damn stupid one if I decided to take this flight now wouldn't I. I still think this is occuring on a regular basis because the UK pilots are resisting having Sky Marshalls on board.

Gandalf.

Originally posted by dahamsta

These would be the self-same professionals that:

- knew about September 11 months before it happened?
- released over a hundred "enemy combatants" from Guantanamo Bay without charge?
- employed someone arrested for DWI while on duty as their TSA chief in Dulles Airport?

adam

Well they knew about sept 11th and did nothing about it??
But now they are trying to prevent a similar event , whats wrong with that?

While I wont condone Guantanamo, i will say, detention without trial was tried and abandoned in NI foer a while was it not? and roundabout the time of the Guilford and birmingham pub bombings in the UK, there was no sympathy for any IRA suspects and Irish people were treated with suspicion in general.
Indeed the subsequently freed and innocent Birmingham six were spat at during their trial.

This is what happens when a people are directly under threat and a government can consequently get away with the measures it takes-rightly or wrongly.

And as regarding hiring, potential wrong do-ers,no system is perfect ( recent example being Soham ) but highlighting the imperfections and putting up with security inconveniences with respect to air travel is good if it saves innocent lives.

I wasn't aware that you could be arrested without probably cause and held without access to legal representation or your family at the height of the troubles. Not legally anyway.

Unfortunately yes at one point you could

Moriarty

Heh.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Man
Well they knew about sept 11th and did nothing about it??
But now they are trying to prevent a similar event , whats wrong with that?

No, I'm afraid that's the cheap way out. The fact remains that these "professionals" regularly demonstrate incompetence and have given us no reason to start trusting them all of a sudden. If you want to trust them, that's your lookout. The question stands: Where do you draw the line? Cameras on your street? In your living room? In your bedroom? Internment in Guantanamo? How about something more Belsen-like? An oven sir?

As to Norn Iron, were warrants issued for these arrests? Did they have access to lawyers? Did they have access to their families? In all honesty, I don't know, but I will say that if /I/ was arrested, I would want to be seen as innocent until proven guilty, I would want to see a lawyer, I would want to talk to my family. Comparing like with like doesn't make the horrendous behaviour of the Bush administration right.

adam

Originally posted by dahamsta
No, I'm afraid that's the cheap way out. The fact remains that these "professionals" regularly demonstrate incompetence and have given us no reason to start trusting them all of a sudden.
adam

Thats fine, but still their government has the right to protect their citizens and that has extended to jets flying to the states from foreign countries.
Now who do you think, errors and ommisions excepted,the people who elect them will trust more to do that,the terrorists (with no regard for an innocent passenger) or the security officials??
I'm saying these measures are perfectly understandable in the circumstances, I certainly feel safer with them in place and passengers interviewed at Heathrow on BBC news in recent days overwhelmingly agreed.
The why's and wherefores of what could be done and undone to make madmen less inclined to fly planes into buildings or blow them up are for another thread.
The practicalities of their existence and what is being done to prevent planes being blown up by these mad men is what i thought was being discussed here.

Regarding internment in Northern Ireland or anywhere, what you want Adam and what your government might consider necessary won't always coincide.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Man
Thats fine, but still their government has the right to protect their citizens and that has extended to jets flying to the states from foreign countries.

I don't object to security measures, I'm not insane. What I object to is the ongoing institution of these security measures behind a veil of secrecy, with no transparency and no oversight. I object to the willingness of people to accept these measures with nary a question or a raised eyebrow.

People have taken people like Tony Blair and George Bush on trust, and they have consistently been not just wrong, but intentionally wrong. They've lied point-blank about WMDs, they've lied about ties between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, between Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.

People like yourself continue to defend them, as is your right. I'm just curious as to what it will take to change your mind. How many more lies will you accept? Will it take arrest without a warrant? The aforementioned cameras in your home?

You tiptoe around this, perhaps because you think I'm being facetious, but it's a serious question. Perhaps you don't feel there's an answer, but surely everybody has limits?

Regarding internment in Northern Ireland or anywhere, what you want Adam and what your government might consider necessary won't always coincide.

I don't dispute that, and the same goes for all aspects of life. My line in the sand just seems to be further back than others. I don't accept trusisms like "if you have nothing to hide" on spec, I want limits and I want transparency. A little truth and a lot less of the lies and misdirection would be a start though. When's that going to start?

adam

dahamsta

Here's a nicely timed example. Is this before your line in the sand? After it?

adam

Torture by proxy
How immigration threw a traveler to the wolves
Christopher H. Pyle
Sunday, January 4, 2004

On Sept. 26, 2002, U.S. immigration officials seized a Syrian-born Canadian at Kennedy International Airport, because his name had come up on an international watch list for possible terrorists. What happened next is chilling.

Maher Arar was about to change planes on his way home to Canada after visiting his wife's family in Tunisia when he was pulled aside for questioning. He was not a terrorist. He had no terrorist connections, but his name was on the list, so he was detained for questioning. Not ordinary, polite questioning, but abusive, insulting, degrading questioning by the immigration service, the FBI and the New York City Police Department.

He asked for a lawyer and was told he could not have one. He asked to call his family, but phone calls were not permitted. Instead, he was clapped into shackles and, for several days, made to "disappear." His family was frantic.

Finally, he was allowed to make a call. His government expected that Arar's right of safe passage under its passport would be respected. But it wasn't. Arar denied any connection to terrorists. He was not accused of any crimes, but U.S. agents wanted him questioned further by someone whose methods might be more persuasive than theirs.

So, they put Arar on a private plane and flew him to Washington, D.C. There, a new team, presumably from the CIA, took over and delivered him, by way of Jordan, to Syrian interrogators. This covert operation was legal, our Justice Department later claimed, because Arar is also a citizen of Syria by birth. The fact that he was a Canadian traveling on a Canadian passport, with a wife, two children and job in Canada, and had not lived in Syria for 16 years, was ignored. The Justice Department wanted him to be questioned by Syrian military intelligence, whose interrogation methods our government has repeatedly condemned.

The Syrians locked Arar in an underground cell the size of a grave: 3 feet wide, 6 feet long, 7 feet high. Then they questioned him, under torture, repeatedly, for 10 months. Finally, when it was obvious that their prisoner had no terrorist ties, they let him go, 40 pounds lighter, with a pronounced limp and chronic nightmares.

Why was Arar on our government's watch list? Because "multiple international intelligence agencies" had linked him to terrorist groups. How many agencies? Two. What had they reported? Not much.

The Syrians believed that Arar might be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Why? Because a cousin of his mother's had been, nine years earlier, long after Arar moved to Canada. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police reported that the lease on Arar's apartment had been witnessed by a Syrian- born Canadian who was believed to know an Egyptian Canadian whose brother was allegedly mentioned in an al Qaeda document.

That's it. That's all they had: guilt by the most remote of computer- generated associations. But, according to Attorney General John Ashcroft, that was more than enough to justify Arar's delivery to Syria's torturers.

[...]

shotamoose

Originally posted by dahamsta
People have taken people like Tony Blair and George Bush on trust, and they have consistently been not just wrong, but intentionally wrong. They've lied point-blank about WMDs, they've lied about ties between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, between Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.

But WMD and flight security are completely different issues. I don't trust Blair or Bush an inch on WMD, but I'm more inclined to believe that the recent events surrounding delay or cancellation of flights are not part of some secret self-serving conspiracy. Why? Because it's not clear what they stand to gain from manipulating flight security in this way, and because it would be difficult for political leaders to interfere in flight security without someone getting wind of it.

People like yourself continue to defend them, as is your right. I'm just curious as to what it will take to change your mind. How many more lies will you accept? Will it take arrest without a warrant? The aforementioned cameras in your home?

Again, these are distinct issues. If they were proposing mandatory body cavity searches of every passenger bound for the US, I'd have a problem with it. Whenever they have interned passengers or simply exported them for torture as in the case of the Canadian guy, I have a problem with it. But delaying or cancelling planes to double-check who is boarding is completely different.

And there's some cases in which more transparency isn't necessarily a good thing. The whole point of security measures is that we don't always want to reveal exactly how they work, since that would make it easier for those who wanted to get by them to do so.

Originally posted by dahamsta
I don't object to security measures, I'm not insane. What I object to is the ongoing institution of these security measures behind a veil of secrecy, with no transparency and no oversight. I object to the willingness of people to accept these measures with nary a question or a raised eyebrow.

I'd call being open transparent and public about aspects of the security regarding the boarding and flying of planes more worthy of the description of being insecure rather than secure.
Theres a way into my house when it's all locked up but I'm not going to advertise it.
Similarally, the more security at the expense of convenience,( in a climate where mad men may bring the plane that I fly on, down ) that there is the more willing I am, (and I'd feel confident that the majority of regular fliers would agree) to fly.

As regards your comments on Blair and Bush, and my willingness to defend them ( which is a mystery to me especially in the case of the latter ) ... That matters not one iota to the measures required to keep air passengers safe when there are mad men about willing to kill them.

I wouldnt defend the case you bring up either regarding the poor justice meated out to an innocent at Kennedy but then this is no different to anywhere that a serious threat to human life is being tackled.
Mistakes will be made.
Indeed I know of a case where an individual in the early ninties was detained at an airport in the U.K and given a very bad bashing, by overzealous officers because he was Irish and "suspicious".
Indeed mistakes are made every day in justice systems all over the world even without the fear instilled by a threat to innocent lives.
But then and rightly so, such things are where possible brought to the public eye, from what I've read, it wouldn't be high on the agenda of AlQu'eda to put what we would accept as human rights ahead of their aims.

dahamsta

I'd call being open transparent and public about aspects of the security regarding the boarding and flying of planes more worthy of the description of being insecure rather than secure.

No limits then?

Similarally, the more security at the expense of convenience,( in a climate where mad men may bring the plane that I fly on, down ) that there is the more willing I am, (and I'd feel confident that the majority of regular fliers would agree) to fly.

Again, no limits? Every time you fly you have to strip naked and be searched, including the infamous finger in the rectum. Every time you fly it will take 12 hours for the (invariably utterly unqualified) security staff to process everyone. When you arrive, another search and internal examination, another 12 hours. That ok for you? That's "more security" like.

As regards your comments on Blair and Bush, and my willingness to defend them ( which is a mystery to me especially in the case of the latter ) ...

My apologies, I wasn't referring to direct support of Bush and Blair, but indirect support via defense of their security policies, lies and misdirection.

Mistakes will be made.

Oooh, that sounded like a Cork soundbite, although you should have capitalised Made. Your alter-ego perhaps?

Oh, and how many mistakes? How large can the mistakes be?

adam

Originally posted by dahamsta

Again, no limits? Every time you fly you have to strip naked and be searched, including the infamous finger in the rectum. Every time you fly it will take 12 hours for the (invariably utterly unqualified) security staff to process everyone. When you arrive, another search and internal examination, another 12 hours. That ok for you? That's "more security" like.
adam

I wasnt aware that every passenger was being strip-searched etc aren't you being a tad melodramatic there in the face of a threat to innocent passengers?
I certainly don't object in the case of U.S travel, finger printing and I've already been photographed in Gatwick a few times, it took about ten seconds.

Oooh, that sounded like a Cork soundbite, although you should have capitalised Made. Your alter-ego perhaps?
Oh, and how many mistakes? How large can the mistakes be?

Cork soundbytes... heh!
Arguing for perfection is fine, but you ain't going to get it.
As regards mistakes, their upside, is that we learn from them usually.
I'd have thought that politicians in the U.S would get a right ear bashing if a foreign plane did a sept 11th due to the security measures being more lax than those for an internal flight.

parsi

Originally posted by Man
well I'd trust the professionals to be looking after security and blame the terrorists for taking away some of my freedoms as a price for my safety-yes

Hmm.. trust the professionals..

"A Homeland department employee's prank e-mail prompted the release of an
immigration agency detainee who had been convicted of kidnapping, according
to the department's Inspector General. The unidentified detainee turned
himself in to Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation officers two
days after his improper release. The employee sent an April Fool's e-mail
to 16 ICE detention officers and supervisors advising them that the
detainee's citizenship had been established with a Puerto Rican birth
certificate, which authorized his release. At the end of the e-mail, the
employee wrote, "Now about that bridge I'm selling. April Fools!" Nine
minutes later, the employee sent a second e-mail that began by saying, "In
case you didn't get to the end of my previous message, here's what really
happened today." The second message said that the detainee had been ordered
deported to the Dominican Republic. A homeland officer who read the first
prank e-mail but did not note the April Fools reference, and did not read
the second e-mail, processed paperwork that authorized the detainee's
release from a county jail on 2 Apr. [Source: Wilson P. Dizard III,
Government Computer News (gcn.com), 28 Nov 2003; PGN-ed]

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.07.html#subj11 "

(Reused without explicit authorization under blanket permission granted for all Risks-Forum Digest materials. The author(s), the RISKS moderator, and the ACM have no connection with this reuse.)

dahamsta

Originally posted by Man
I wasnt aware that every passenger was being strip-searched etc aren't you being a tad melodramatic there in the face of a threat to innocent passengers?

I didn't suggest that every passenger was being strip-searched, I simply asked where your limits lie? Since I've asked the question several times now and you seem incapable of answering, I can only assume you have none.

I certainly don't object in the case of U.S travel, finger printing and I've already been photographed in Gatwick a few times, it took about ten seconds.

When I've been convicted of a crime, the Irish Government is perfectly entitled to retain my fingerprints on file. That's about as far as I'm willing to go. The U.S. Government wasn't able to prevent September 11 with the substantial amount of data they had, and it appears that all they've done with the new mountains of data is abuse it to infringe on people's civil liberties. If their security initiatives are in any way successful, I'd imagine we'd have heard about it by now.

Cork soundbytes... heh!

Ok, I take it back. That was nasty.

Arguing for perfection is fine, but you ain't going to get it.

Where did I argue for perfection? I'm arguing for balance. A contrary view does not automatically mean I'm at the other end of the spectrum you know.

adam

mr_angry

I agree with dahamsta, to some degree anyway. The people responsible for security have to be accountable in some way for mistakes they make. It's simply not good enough to suggest that "mistakes will be made". We're not looking for absolute perfection here, but there are clear examples of very serious wrongdoing on behalf of the American security forces in the past year. And I don't think the idea of strip-searching every woman with a Muslim name will go down too well outside of the Western world, do you?

As it happens, I share my name with a convicted IRA man who was organising the shipment of arms back from Florida about 6 years ago. I'd rather not be sent to Syria and be investigated by Syrian interrogaters for such a chance connection, if that's alright with you? I hope I'm not being too 'lefty' for your peace of mind.

Originally posted by dahamsta
I didn't suggest that every passenger was being strip-searched, I simply asked where your limits lie? Since I've asked the question several times now and you seem incapable of answering, I can only assume you have none.
adam

Well I wouldn't be qualified to answer that question.
I did state however that I found the current measures acceptable in the face of the current threat and that many passengers interviewed by the BBC at Heathrow were happy to fly when they knew such measures were being taken.

I also suggested that mass strip-searching all passengers being the next step was a tad melodramatic.
I've noticed more and more as I travel on planes, that I am being asked to take off my shoe though.
That is acceptable and a not even a minor inconvenience given that someone( a madman ) tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb.

Where did I argue for perfection? I'm arguing for balance. A contrary view does not automatically mean I'm at the other end of the spectrum you know.

Ok let me expand slightly for clarification as I said earlier in this thread the man that never made a mistake never made anything .
If mistakes are not made that is perfection is it not?
Mistakes are made by everybody every day regardless of how near or far from perfect they are at their job or how well qualified, and that goes for the implimentation of security at airports as much as anything else.
I wouldn't and have stated already condone the mistakes but at the same time I would be learning from them rather than using them as a "nit-pick" to back track on stringent security at airports.
To do so would be ( unintentionally in most cases ) a friend of the terrorist.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by dahamsta
Where did I argue for perfection? I'm arguing for balance. A contrary view does not automatically mean I'm at the other end of the spectrum you know.

By balance presumably you mean that the measures taken need to be weighed up against the actual security risks.

mr_angry

To do so would be ( unintentionally in most cases ) a friend of the terrorist.

Its nice to see the "You're either with us or against us" mentality is still alive and kicking. Anyway, we're not suggesting that nobody at all should be inconvenienced. We are suggesting that the security forces are held accountable for what they do wrong. Just as I am held accountable for what I do wrong.

If I beat up a man in a chip shop because I think he was looking at the till funny, do I get the Attourney General telling me it was alright because it was in the name of crime prevention? What about if I'm extremely paranoid about crime? What if the man looks a bit like another known criminal?

The answer is no. I just expect the same standards to apply to the airline security "professionals". Is that too much to ask?

sovtek

Originally posted by Man
Ok let me expand slightly for clarification as I said earlier in this thread the man that never made a mistake never made anything .
If mistakes are not made that is perfection is it not?
Mistakes are made by everybody every day regardless of how near or far from perfect they are at their job or how well qualified, and that goes for the implimentation of security at airports as much as anything else.
I wouldn't and have stated already condone the mistakes but at the same time I would be learning from them rather than using them as a "nit-pick" to back track on stringent security at airports.
To do so would be ( unintentionally in most cases ) a friend of the terrorist.

When you look at how many mistakes have been made then at some point you must consider that they aren't learning from their mistakes...or maybe there's some other motivation for drawing such attention.

Originally posted by mr_angry
Its nice to see the "You're either with us or against us" mentality is still alive and kicking. Anyway, we're not suggesting that nobody at all should be inconvenienced. We are suggesting that the security forces are held accountable for what they do wrong. Just as I am held accountable for what I do wrong.

If I beat up a man in a chip shop because I think he was looking at the till funny, do I get the Attourney General telling me it was alright because it was in the name of crime prevention? What about if I'm extremely paranoid about crime? What if the man looks a bit like another known criminal?

The answer is no. I just expect the same standards to apply to the airline security "professionals". Is that too much to ask?

Well if thats your position, I don't think I've disagreed with it.
I've merely said that exposing security measures to the light removes any security they bring.
I've already agreed with what you have stated regarding accountability where wrongs are committed as a result of mistakes.
My position on the current measures as stated is that I am happy with them if they save lives, the inconvenience is actually fairly minor in conjunction with twarting the efforts of madmen to kill innocent passengers.

Originally posted by Sovtek
When you look at how many mistakes have been made then at some point you must consider that they aren't learning from their mistakes...or maybe there's some other motivation for drawing such attention.

Hmmm, how many passengers travel through JFK and other U.S international airports every day Sovtek? And what percentage of these have been subjected to an error ? A very small price methinks to pay considering the level of madness in the brains of people that wish to blow up innocent air travellers.

mr_angry

Originally posted by Man
Well if thats your position, I don't think I've disagreed with it.
I've merely said that exposing security measures to the light removes any security they bring.
I've already agreed with what you have stated regarding accountability where wrongs are committed as a result of mistakes.
My position on the current measures as stated is that I am happy with them if they save lives, the inconvenience is actually fairly minor in conjunction with twarting the efforts of madmen to kill innocent passengers.

My apologies if we've been on the same lines all along, but I got the impression from your posts that:
a) You were in favour of ANY security measures, regardless of how much they infringed on our civil liberties, and
b) Serious mistakes were acceptable -

Mistakes will be made

I aplologise if I'm taking you out of context there, but that was the impression I got from it in the first place.

Originally posted by mr_angry
My apologies if we've been on the same lines all along, but I got the impression from your posts that:
a) You were in favour of ANY security measures, regardless of how much they infringed on our civil liberties, and
b) Serious mistakes were acceptable -

I aplologise if I'm taking you out of context there, but that was the impression I got from it in the first place.

My input on this discussion regarding the current security measures was to give my opinion and reasons why I thought that they are a minor inconvenience given that they may save lives.

I never said serious mistakes were acceptable, rather I pointed out that they were inevitable .

My attitude towards issues other than security measures to prevent madmen from blowing up planes and on "big brother" would drag this off topic so I will not be doing that here ( new years resolution...I wonder how long that will last... ) and besides it's been done to death in other threads.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Man
I also suggested that mass strip-searching all passengers being the next step was a tad melodramatic.

It was an oversimplification, granted; however...

I've noticed more and more as I travel on planes, that I am being asked to take off my shoe though.

...security measures like these were implemented by politicians and civil servants, not security experts. Next time you do travel by air to the US, watch the screeners carefully to see the cursory examination they give your shoes. Then think about all the reporters that actually tried to get weapons like box cutters and pseudo-plastique on board and succeeded. Finally, project what will happen if/when a terrorist succeeds. Perhaps they won't mass strip-search people, perhaps they'll just turn up the fear factor another few notches, so Americans won't leave their homes.

Ok let me expand slightly for clarification as I said earlier in this thread the man that never made a mistake never made anything .

I don't deny that mistakes will be made either. What concerns me is the sheer scale and number of mistakes that are being made. And those are the ones that we hear about, how many have been hidden away by the veil of secrecy that shrouds everything the Bush administration does?

I wouldn't and have stated already condone the mistakes but at the same time I would be learning from them rather than using them as a "nit-pick" to back track on stringent security at airports.

But they're not learning from them, to wit Mr. TSA Chief at Dulles airport last week.

To do so would be ( unintentionally in most cases ) a friend of the terrorist.

If you're not with us, you're against us. Right on Mr. Bush.

adam

Originally posted by dahamsta

If you're not with us, you're against us. Right on Mr. Bush.

I see if i'm not with the Gardaí when they persue criminals I'm against them am I?
If I'm not with measures that make life difficult rather than easy for the terroris ( yet not inconveniencing the traveller much ) I'm against them eh?
What sort of logic is that particularally when you are tie-ing it in with a jive at Mr Bush.
The issue is are the contols in place too much or not.
The issue with air travel is what is it that is necessary in the current climate to make it safer.

To turn your argument on its head then and analyise it some more, which controls at present or proposed would you get rid of??

dahamsta

Originally posted by Man
I see if i'm not with the Gardaí when they persue criminals I'm against them am I?

This isn't comparing like with like. The TSA isn't a police force, and neither are the airlines that voluntarily comply with its directives - more out of fear of being seen to be unamerican than any wish to promote good security. The directives they both enforce were not agreed by proper legal process, but were drawn up by pencil-pushers and committee sitters that are more interested in smoke and mirrors than effective security measures. I fail to see how objecting to this is the same as supporting terrorists; for the same reason that I fail to see how objecting to the Bush administration in general creates the same allegiances.

To turn your argument on its head then and analyise it some more, which controls at present or proposed would you get rid of??

Well, shipping someone to Syria for interrogation strikes me as just a wee bit over the top, but perhaps that's too melodramatic? How about training the screeners properly and paying them more than minimum wage? On the wider front, I'd like to see people detained at airports get access to proper legal processes.

As a European, I'd like to be able to travel to the States without being viewed as a terrorist by default. I'd like to see my privacy respected. I'd prefer not to have my information in US databases, because US data protection isn't worth spit. If it has to be in those databases, I'd like to know that it won't be sold to Walmart before I touchdown.

adam

Originally posted by dahamsta
This isn't comparing like with like. The TSA isn't a police force, and neither are the airlines that voluntarily comply with its directives - more out of fear of being seen to be unamerican than any wish to promote good security.

Thats a bit of a sweeping statement there, I'd have thought the very thing that airlines in the U.S would be interested in would be, being seen to be taking necessary measures to prevent terrorist attacks on their planes. It promotes their business ie it attracts more customers as well as ultimately making their journey safer.

I fail to see how objecting to this is the same as supporting terrorists; for the same reason that I fail to see how objecting to the Bush administration in general creates the same allegiances.

It's fairly straightfoward, you are free to object, but if the level of security is lowered then the terrorist benefits.
I don't see the linkage between the totally separate objection to the policies of the Bush administration.
You are free to object to them in whole or in part. But and it's a big but where the safety of innocent air passengers are concerned, bear in mind that the terrorist is watching and waiting for his chance.

Well, shipping someone to Syria for interrogation strikes me as just a wee bit over the top

Again out of the millions of passengers that pass through U.S airports how many or what percentage did that happen to?
Pretty tiny I would say, a significant rare but unpleasant by product of the measures the U.S deem necessary to protect air passengers travelling to and from the U.S.
It's an issue that should be taken up with the madmen whose potential madness these measures try to twart, but then they are mad, and probably not open to rational discussion like you and I.

As a European, I'd like to be able to travel to the States without being viewed as a terrorist by default.

My priority would be slightly different in the sense that as a European I would like to be able to travel to the U.S without being looked upon by Al Qu'eda et al as a passenger and victim in a mass murdering weapon by default.

If it has to be in those databases, I'd like to know that it won't be sold to Walmart before I touchdown.

I understand you are trying hard to get me to break my new years resolution:D but if it's spam you are worried about, rest a tad easier, they're working on it .

dahamsta

Originally posted by Man
Thats a bit of a sweeping statement there, I'd have thought the very thing that airlines in the U.S would be interested in would be, being seen to be taking necessary measures to prevent terrorist attacks on their planes. It promotes their business ie it attracts more customers as well as ultimately making their journey safer.

You responded to yourself there with the two words I've underlined. As I've said, the security measures instituted by the TSA and the airlines are mostly about perception. They've been broken and walked around by many a reporter, never mind a determined, well-briefed terrorist. Bruce Schneier has commented on this substantially in Crypto-Gram over the last couple of years. You'll find plenty of links to articles there too.

It's fairly straightfoward, you are free to object, but if the level of security is lowered then the terrorist benefits.

That assumes that the initiatives are creating an appreciably greater level of security, which as I've repeated, I don't believe. I think an Al Queda cell could hijack another jet tomorrow if they set their minds to it.

Again out of the millions of passengers that pass through U.S airports how many or what percentage did that happen to?

Something of that nature shouldn't have happened, period. Perhaps you don't find it offensive -- I find it abhorrent that it was acceptable to anybody.

My priority would be slightly different in the sense that as a European I would like to be able to travel to the U.S without being looked upon by Al Qu'eda et al as a passenger and victim in a mass murdering weapon by default.

You shouldn't fly at all then. Any Tom, Dick or Harry could do it.

I understand you are trying hard to get me to break my new years resolution

I don't know what it is, so I'm not!

but if it's spam you are worried about, rest a tad easier, they're working on it .

I'll genuinely be surprised if CAN SPAM has a substantive affect on the level of spam on my servers. It certainly hasn't so far. But it would be unfair and silly of me to project, so I'll just latch on to one item you may have missed in that Bill: They exempted themselves from it. It is an election year after all...

adam

Victor

Why don't they just change the number of the flight?

Originally posted by dahamsta
including the infamous finger in the rectum

Isn't it one finger social, two fingers professional? Or do I have the wrong oriface?

Originally posted by dahamsta
You responded to yourself there with the two words I've underlined. As I've said, the security measures instituted by the TSA and the airlines are mostly about perception. They've been broken and walked around by many a reporter, never mind a determined, well-briefed terrorist. Bruce Schneier has commented on this substantially in Crypto-Gram over the last couple of years. You'll find plenty of links to articles there too.

So what are you saying here, you are happy with the level of security as it stands but want better training or you would like the level stood down a bit with better training.
It's not impossible to get throught security, but it is very difficult and of late much more difficult.
Fingerprints and photographs wouldn't be long about divulging the identity of a journalist for instance.

That assumes that the initiatives are creating an appreciably greater level of security, which as I've repeated, I don't believe. I think an Al Queda cell could hijack another jet tomorrow if they set their minds to it.

Well you are entitled to have that opinion, but it's been two years since a U.S plane has been hi-jacked and only now are the restrictions getting extremely tight, so security must be having some effect.

Something of that nature shouldn't have happened, period. Perhaps you don't find it offensive -- I find it abhorrent that it was acceptable to anybody.

Again I'll have to tell you that theses things while unacceptable are going to happen with the law of averages in a tiny percentage of cases. Theres no way out whilst madmen want to con their way onto a plane with the intention of blowing it up.
I never said it was acceptable just unfortunately inevitable.
Nothing is going to be foolproof or perfect and unfortunately tiny percentages of the travelling public will end up experiencing this in the overall effort to save lives.

You shouldn't fly at all then. Any Tom, Dick or Harry could do it.

I don't agree, I feel safer than ever flying actually with these measures in place.

I understand you are trying hard to get me to break my new years resolution
I don't know what it is, so I'm not!

A couple of posts back I'd stated that it was not to go off topic

mr_angry

It's an issue that should be taken up with the madmen whose potential madness these measures try to twart, but then they are mad, and probably not open to rational discussion like you and I....

Nothing is going to be foolproof or perfect and unfortunately tiny percentages of the travelling public will end up experiencing this in the overall effort to save lives.

Just when I thought we'd reached a kind of consensus, you again seem to believe that it is acceptable for this kind of thing to happen. I can't understand why. Why does this kind of thing have to happen to innocent people? I firmly believe that our airlines can be kept secure without sending innocent people to Syria to be tortured and interrogated. What's more, I think the fact that it happened at all is f*cking outrageous! And to think the US Attourney General wont even apologise!!!! The man involved should be taking them to the cleaners! How would you feel if that happened to you Man? I bet you wouldn't be best f*cking pleased, even "in the name of airline security".