home

Objections to Rampant Airport Security

The ACLU weighed in today on the new TSA airplane security rules, and the increase of whole body imaging scanners.

[T]he government should adhere to longstanding standards of individualized suspicion and enact security measures that are the least threatening to civil liberties and are proven to be effective. Racial profiling and untargeted body scanning do not meet those criteria.

..."We should be focusing on evidence-based, targeted and narrowly tailored investigations based on individualized suspicion, which would be both more consistent with our values and more effective than diverting resources to a system of mass suspicion," said Michael German, national security policy counsel with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office and a former FBI agent. "Overbroad policies such as racial profiling and invasive body scanning for all travelers not only violate our rights and values, they also waste valuable resources and divert attention from real threats."

[More...]

The ACLU says it's a pretext for racial profiling:

[T]here is no way to predict the national origin of a terrorist and many terrorists have come from countries not on the list. For instance, the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid is a British citizen, as were four of the London subway bombers, and in 2005 a Belgian woman launched a suicide attack in Iraq.

..."Singling out travelers from a few specified countries for enhanced screening is essentially a pretext for racial profiling, which is ineffective, unconstitutional and violates American values. Empirical studies of terrorists show there is no terrorist profile, and using a profile that doesn't reflect this reality will only divert resources by having government agents target innocent people,"

"Profiling can also be counterproductive by undermining community support for government counterterrorism efforts and creating an injustice that terrorists can exploit to justify further acts of terrorism."

As to the body scanners, the ACLU says when they were tried in Great Britain, officials decides they were not shown to be effective in preventing terrorist threats on airplanes.

And according to security experts, the explosive device used in the attempted attack on a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day would not have been detected by the body scanners.

They provide a false sense of security. And when used without individualized suspicion, they violate our privacy rights.

"If scanners and other intrusive procedures are used, it should be with their limitations in mind and only when there is reason to believe that an individual poses an increased risk to flight safety, not as blanket measures applied to millions of innocent travelers."

And what about the cost? A Swedish professor writing in Al Jazeera today, dubs the security changes The $30bn pair of underpants . While I don't agree with everything he wrote, he makes this good point:

Think about it. One angry young man with about three ounces (around 80 grams) of explosive material, $2,000, and a pair of specially tailored underwear has completely disrupted the US aviation system. It does not even matter that he failed to blow up the plane.

The costs associated with preventing the next attack from succeeding will measure in the tens of billions of dollars - new technologies, added law enforcement and security personnel on and off planes, lost revenues for airline companies and more expensive plane tickets, and of course, the expansion of the 'war on terror' full on to yet another country, Yemen.

....And what happens when the next attacker turns out to have received ideological or logistical training in yet another country? Perhaps in Nigeria, which is home to a strong and violent Salafi movement, or anyone of a dozen other African, Gulf, Middle Eastern or South East Asian countries where al-Qaeda has set up shop?

Will the US ramp up its efforts in a new country each time there is an attempted attack, putting US "boots on the ground" against an enemy that is impossible to defeat?

We are embarking on another collision course with our privacy rights and about to increase our commitment to funding the war on terror and intervention in the affairs of other countries, and once again, like with the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq, we're not going to be any safer, just less free.

< Supeme Court Won't Decide Prosecutorial Misconduct Immunity Case | Monday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    "the least restrictive" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by diogenes on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:15:42 PM EST
    Sorry, the way to most prevent terrorism is by skillful profiling, which by the way will decrease pointless searches.  Why don't we contract with El Al to handle all of our airport security?

    Nah... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:21:30 AM EST
    the best way to prevent terrorism is to revamp our foreign policy...but no one is interested in the roots of the bloody tree, only the leaves.

    Since no one is interested in tackling the difficult "no easy answer" problem that is terrorism, we should focus on keeping planes as safe as possible without getting too bed-wetter ridiculous..and the best way to do that is bomb-screening.  Much easier and more effective to examine the explosive contents of a bag or person that it is to examine the contents of someones mind...no?

    Parent

    Do you honestly think (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:34:44 AM EST
    If we pulled out of all countries everywhere, and just kept to ourselves, and didn't interact with any other country in the world, then all those who hate us and wish to do us harm (i.e. al-Qaeda) would just give up and say, "Okay, we won't hurt you - we'll be your friend now?"

    Really?

    Parent

    No certainty of course... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:42:42 AM EST
    but there is only one way to find out!  

    I do believe, as much as this is utterly taboo to say, that some of the gripes of our "enemies" are legit.

    Parent

    Question for you jb... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:46:29 AM EST
    Do you honestly think we can foreign occupation/CIA Operation/No Fly List/Email Intercept/Phone Tap/Indefinite Detention/Profile our way out of the terrorism problem?  Really?

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:54:34 AM EST
    Thankfully, I'm not in charge of foreign policy.  I do know that it isn't as black and white as some would like to see - "if we stop everything we're doing, then they'll like us."

    Not popular around here, but this sums it up.

    Parent

    We don't need anybody to like us... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:04:30 PM EST
    we just need people not be so motivated to kill us...ceasing aggression may accomplish that.  Giving the hate-mullahs less ammo to feed peoples heads with may accomplish that.

    Of course nobody can say for sure the correct course of action, but I'm confident on the more righteous course of action, and that is giving peace a chance.  

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:48:20 AM EST
    People are certainly free to have gripes.  What they do not have a right to do is get on a plane and try to blow it up, or to try and blow up a building, or a car, etc.  If they do that, then the full force of the American military and or justice system should be brought upon their heads with the force and fire of a thousand suns.

    Just sayin'...

    Parent

    The right we claim... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:54:00 AM EST
    to fly a drone over a village and drop a bomb is the same right they claim to blow up a plane.

    Just sayin'...

    Parent

    village? Back and forth, back and forth, it's all just a big circle.

    All living things have competing needs and demands, and they're all, fundamentally, about power.

    "They" want the power to get done what "they" think is right and ought to be done and "we" want the power to do what "we" think is right.

    "They" and "we" disagree mightily on what is right - regardless of our, or their, "foreign policy."

    D'ya think if Eli's "policy" on Sunday was different, let's say he only tried to score 1 time that he had the ball instead of every single time, that Brett & Co. would've eased up and not tried to score every time they touched the ball? Of course not.

    Competition for power is a fundamental part of every living being's existence, including and especially human beings, and sometimes the stakes are high enough that that competition is violent.

    Changing our foreign policy will not change fundamental human nature...

    Parent

    yes and no (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:17:23 PM EST
    there is a certain aspect of things that we can't control.  There will never be 100% safety simply by giving up power.  Someone will always take advantage of that and fight for greater power at a sign of weakness.

    That being said, I do not adhere to the point of view that there is "nothing we can do" to stem the tide of violence besides greater security.

    It's no accident that the vast majority of the attackers stem from places where we have had a history of failed and aggresive foreign policy.

    The Japanese and the Germans aren't the ones attacking us, and they weren't attacking us in the 60s and 70s either.  And we bombed the cr@p out of those countries.

    At the end of the day, I don't think it's possible to "solve" security problems 100%.  But in order to cut back on the violence, you have to take a multi-faceted approach.

    Parent

    It's no accident (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    It's no accident that the vast majority of the attackers stem from places where we have had a history of failed and aggressive foreign policy.
    And why was that "failed and aggressive" foreign policy implemented in the first place?

    Again, back and forth, back and forth, it's all a big circle.

    If all nations/groups agreed on the same exact goals there would be no conflict, violent or otherwise.

    In attempting to reach agreement on those goals the nations/groups use both carrot and stick.

    The relative amounts of carrot and stick used in the past have resulted in the world we have today.

    There are those, I imagine, who believe that the world would be less violent today if more stick had been used in the past.

    And, probably, those who believe the opposite, that the world would be less violent today if less stick had been used in the past.

    And those people probably feel comfortable in projecting their beliefs forward.

    The reality is none of us really knows, it's unknowable. But someone has the responsibility to to make the decisions on behalf of our nation. I thank god I don't have that responsibility and can just be an anonymous internet yahoo...

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    I dunno, something about Communists and Oil.

    I agree these aren't easy questions.  But one could just as easily dismiss "enhanced security" with "enhanced bombing techniques".

    It doesn't mean we stop trying to answer those questions.  Or acknowledge the fact that it does play a role and it's not simply a case where "nothing can be done".

    As for what the RIGHT thing to do is, that's why we have debates.  But I don't buy the argument that it's set in stone that we can't win people over.

    Parent

    "something about Communists and Oil." (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:16:25 PM EST
    It's all about power, the power to do what you think ought to be done, the power to do what you think is "right." Oil is power. In fact it may be the ultimate power. I'm pretty sure the "commies" knew that too...

    Parent
    clean energy (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:28:36 PM EST
    not just a global warming debate.

    Parent
    A different, and important, discussion. (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:52:28 PM EST
    The power the Taliban and AQ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:51:02 PM EST
    desire seems much smaller in scope than ours....they just wanna tyrannize and dominate locally...villages and at most countries.  I don't buy that they want to rule America or the world...just their little corners.  We, otoh, seem to want the whole shebang.  I could be wrong of course...but I do not see the muslim crazies attempting at world dominance to the extent we are.  It could just be a lack of means, or just maybe a lack of will.  

    Revenge is another element of human nature...no aggression, no need for revenge.  The only ways I can think of to stop (or slow) the circle of violence and retaliatory revenge is to kill everybody (not on the table I hope), or to be the bigger entity and be the first to say no mas.

    You reminded me of why I love playing football so much...a safe outlet for those human nature tendencies of power and dominance.  And when the final whistle blows, everybody shakes hands and goes to work the next day.  It's a god damn shame we can't send this conflict onto the gridiron or the pitch to be settled.

    Parent

    It would make life so much easier (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:12:38 PM EST
    if "we" were just as small and relatively powerless workerbees like AQ or the Taliban. We could just do our thing in our little corner of the world.

    Trouble is, not only does everything "we" or "they" do affect everyone else on the planet in proportion to "our" and "their" power, but "we" are, in effect, the planet's cell boss, the big cheese, the head honcho. Everything we do affects all the other nations/groups.

    We can't "go easier" or "harder" on AQ or the Taliban w/o assessing the effects that would have on those nations/groups we are in alliance with.

    It is "Survivor," you do what you gotta do in order to get done what you think ought to be done. All the others in the "game" have, at least some, competing goals. You can't get done what you think ought to be done w/o conflict with those others. And they with you.

    Jeez, I'm blathering on a lot today...

    Parent

    Thought provoking blather... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:05:17 PM EST
    so blather away my good man.

    All I would add is "losing" the "right" way is a helluva lot easier on my constitution than "winning" the wrong way...there is something to be said for fighting the righteous fight and coming up short...I'd never make it on that Survivor show, I don't think I have the "back-stabbing win at any cost" gene.  

    Parent

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:23:37 AM EST
    You do see where that logic takes you.

    Parent
    logic (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by diogenes on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:42:54 PM EST
    The terrorists hate the "evil" Zionist Israel most of all; why don't we hear about Israeli planes having bombs?  Maybe it really isn't about hate.

    Parent
    We were lucky with the Detroit plane. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 04:37:11 AM EST
    People like Natal above like to say that observant passengers kept the plane from blowing up so why add other more stringent deterrents?  They are wrong.

    The truth is that only because the bomb failed to go off were the passengers able to then to jump the rather inept terrorist from completing his Jihad.

    We can't depend on luck with the lives of 300 or more people at stake.  We must do better than that.

    There are vocal people squawking about perceived violations of their privacy but I think the majority of the public and their elected and hired officials as well as the professional pilots are going do what they think makes for safer travel.

    The squawkers will have the choices of accepting the perceived indignities or not flying.  If they don't fly, they can stay home, drive overland if possible, or take a boat.

    I could see, as I stated in another post somewhere, that there might be a "special non invasive to privacy plane without all these privacy violations that flies once a month at 10 times the price (for insurance purposes) with very young daredevil pilots or old geezer pilots who need the money."  The squawkers could make their reservations on that plane along with the people on the standard "no fly list."   They could take off and land on special fields way out in the hinterlands like the Dakota badlands away from the scared citizenry.

    I once went to an Eric Clapton concert (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:18:49 AM EST
    at a large sports venue.  Each and every person entering the venue was "wanded."  This was many years ago.  I did not hear a single objection to this procedure.  

    Parent
    At Levon Helm's... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:56:13 AM EST
    Midnight Rambles they don't even use tickets or check ID's...just give your name and enjoy the show...and he's letting you on his freakin' property.  So welcoming...so cool.

    I can't recall ever being wanded for a show, just a quick meaningless ineffective pat-down sometimes....more illusionary nonsense.

    Parent

    Oh, and they patted down the legs of the (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:04:55 PM EST
    guys, including crotch!

    Parent
    Are you sure this wasn't... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:36:16 PM EST
    an NWA concert?

    Parent
    Like she knows... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:46:38 PM EST
    ...who NWA is!  I'm having a hard time believing that Oculus actually attended an Eric Clapton show.

    /was not frisked, searched and/or hassled when I went to see him

    Parent

    Ha! I was surprised she had (none / 0) (#68)
    by vml68 on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:58:09 PM EST
    heard of Eric Clapton... :-)

    Parent
    I wonder if oculus would smoke a fatty with us? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:19:01 PM EST
    I would of course require a babysitter afterwards though.

    Parent
    It is interesting. Despite the invasive (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 07:22:10 PM EST
    security checks, somehow the smell of marijuana was quite prevalent, especially up under the ceiling where I was sitting.

    Parent
    Got me there (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:11:03 PM EST
    Just for you... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    though I'd imagine its not your cup o' tea, nobody from SoCal should be ingorant of N.W.A.

    F*ck Da Police

    Parent

    Joan Rivers - security risk (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by desertswine on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:23:24 AM EST
    Security risk.

    "I tried the tears; they didn't work. I tried reasoning. I couldn't bribe because I didn't have any money," she said. "I said 'I'm going to have a heart attack over this,' so the woman called the paramedics."



    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:31:48 AM EST
    New York-area travelers were also reporting their own horror stories. "It was just one security checkpoint after the other," said Carmella Rodriguez, 65, of Brooklyn, after barely making it through customs at Newark with her nephew after arriving from Panama. "I told my nephew I felt like I was a delinquent person."


    Parent
    I don't care one way or the other (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 08:24:59 PM EST
    but my spouse did say that it is very difficult keeping everyone safe right now and if you don't like it, fine....then don't fly :)  He isn't very sympathetic.

    I agree with Mr. MT (none / 0) (#3)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 09:38:52 PM EST
    If you're scared of something that has less of a chance of happening than getting hit by lightening, perhaps air travel isn't for you.  

    There's no guarantee of safe passage with any kind of transportation.  

    Parent

    I gather that the concern is not (none / 0) (#4)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 09:45:30 PM EST
    the safety of flying but the hassle of security.  And there is a high probability of being hassled, a near-guarantee of discomfort with passage through security these days.

    Parent
    The concern, hassle, discomfort... (none / 0) (#6)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:14:49 PM EST
    ...are all based on fear.  Largely irrational fear.

    That is central to my point.  

    Parent

    I don't get that. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:41:05 PM EST
    The expectation of discomfort is based on reality, on experience, for many of us.  These are not irrational fears.

    Parent
    I don't mind discomfort and/or inconvenience (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:42:56 PM EST
    IF the reasons for it are effective against wannabe terrorists.

    Parent
    I allow a certain amount (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:41:59 PM EST
    of it -- and embarrassment in some cases -- but I think I have limits, and we may be near them.

    Parent
    I am with you on this (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:23:53 AM EST
    My spouse experiences a lot of frustration with Americans right now when he watches cable news.  He says because we are upset that this guy somehow got through and placed people in danger and we want to know who is reponsible for that, but we are upset that troop strength needs to be increased because we do have very severe global problems with Islamic Fundy terrorism, and we are upset that we could be inconvenienced traveling too now.  He said we are all spoiled cry babies who refuse to be responsible for our own safety, and the people working night and day to keep us safe can't win for losing.

    Parent
    When we were in Austin, my daughter was (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:26:58 AM EST
    immersed in cable news blathering about the Christmas Day airplane guy.  Sounds like they have changed their tune now though.  

    Parent
    I think that the military (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:48:07 AM EST
    does not help itself or us with the questioning of citizens' rights to ask questions.

    Parent
    I don't think that is his problem at all (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:42:56 AM EST
    He has always been fine with Americans asking questions.  My hat from the Sheehan protest hangs in his office next to his boonie cap from Iraq.  His problem from what I hear him say is that many people refuse to acknowledge that terrorism is a problem that we must address.  Such people only care to spout decades old rhetoric and offer no other real solutions either.  Instead they only want to ruminate on how this is all everyone elses fault but cannot possibly be their fault in any way.  And when it isn't addressed and someone is placed in danger or at risk then seemingly the same people complain and headhunt to no end.  Certain people always seemingly avoid the responsibility of providing a needed security that civilization must have to exist in.

    Parent
    But we are not to question (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:06:04 PM EST
    security measures that stop septuagenarians and babies let the bloomers bomber get through -- this is not "needed security;" it is the opposite of it.  And we are not to question troop callups but are to send sons and daughters to slaughter as we did under kings -- this is why we had a revolution.  And we are not to question so much else -- or we are "spoiled cry babies."  So I suppose I had better not question how troops in Afghan mountains are watching cable news . . . and watching it for so many hours that they can make these assessments of us (as if we all watch all those hours -- and as if we agree with what they see)!


    Parent
    You aren't to send your sons and (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:22:34 PM EST
    daughters as you did under kings.  You don't own your children anymore and they volunteer for God's sake Cream City.  That's a lot of drama there.  It is fine to question things, but it is not fine to refuse to deal with reality.

    Parent
    And me personally (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:28:06 PM EST
    I think I'd rather back my country's effort to handle this now verses allowing it to grow even worse and then we end up with a system like Israel where our children all serve.

    Parent
    So many National Guard I know (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 01:14:07 PM EST
    certainly did not know they were volunteering for this -- for repeated rotations in foreign wars.

    And nobody said we "own" our children; go through divorce, and you will find out that the government does.  The statement was about loss -- a reality you deny.  I think we know why, but it doesn't give you a pass for calling us "spoiled cry babies."

    Parent

    This is not true at this time (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:14:38 PM EST
    Cream City.  At the onset sure it was, when Bush sent the National Guard you weren't the only one OMGing either.  Most of the regular military was too because the National Guard was not properly trained.  So much has changed now.  That was seven years ago.  I'm not sure what the max enlistment can be in the National Guard, but in the regular military it is six years.  Everybody who is deploying now knew that deployment was on the table when they signed.

    Parent
    and believe me (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:17:32 PM EST
    I don't deny the reality of loss.  I'm absolutely certain I have personally experienced much more loss in this current reality than you have. I accept that we will all lose one day though too,  we all die.  The only thing we can work toward is quality of life.  Living with daily terror attacks offers no quality of life, that is how they get us and we are in this and it no longer matters whether we want to be or not.

    Parent
    I am not going to get into (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:46:20 PM EST
    your loss contest, but you do not know at all. . . .

    Bottom line is that I much prefer the stoicism of almost all of the the military whom I know -- those whom I know now, those whom I knew before they were buried.  They never would speak so of the public whom they serve.

    Parent

    That is bunk (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:52:35 PM EST
    I love how they are supposed to lose their humanity and remain stoic as if they guard the Queen of England, and protect your butt 24/7, while all you feel that is your duty to do is be fully human and gripe about every single thing they do and acknowledge the reality of the whole situation zero.

    Parent
    Safety is an illusion. (none / 0) (#20)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:33:44 AM EST
    If someone truly wants to bring down a plane, they're going to find a way to do it.  And, they don't have to be on the plane to carry it out.  

    Missles, compromising the electical/mechanical control systems, poisoning the flight crew, etc.  How are body cavity searches or any other reactive "safety measures" going to stop that?  

    Parent

    Good point. Why do "they" bother then? (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:38:08 AM EST
    To perpetuate the illusion... (none / 0) (#25)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 09:05:54 AM EST
    ...of safety, because there is money to be made (see Chertoff, Michael), because a fearful population is easier to control--any number of reasons.  

    The fact remains that you're more likely to die in a shower slip and fall than you are from a terrorist strike against an airplane.  

    Parent

    It is true that I'm more likely to die (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    falling in the shower right now.  What if we don't address these threats though and things grow much worse like they have in the Netherlands?

    Parent
    Who said anything about... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    ...not addressing these threats?  Superficial, reactionary cow-has-left-the-barn acts are not addressing these threats.  

    Parent
    nevermind the shower (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CST on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:48:08 PM EST
    what about driving?  Or getting shot-up in school?  Or mechanical failure on planes?

    We're supposed to get full body scans to fly on an airplane but we can't have a national gun database?

    I sometimes feel like the people who scream the loudest about this type of security have no problem ignoring the very real security problems faced every day in most cities.  Maybe it's because poor people don't fly much.  I don't know.

    I realize this is somewhat OT - but there's my rant for the day.

    Parent

    It's ok (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:49:28 PM EST
    it's a good rant

    Parent
    Well said sir... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:41:23 AM EST
    and its an illusion we apparently are willing to maintain at any cost, be it economic cost or cost to our dignity and liberty.

    Parent
    He has already said recently to me (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:48:13 AM EST
    that if the United States develops such an attitude about all this, we may as well sign on for the fate that the Netherlands is trying to deal with now and he says that the magnitude of what they attempting to deal with is HUGE.

    Parent
    They have not resorted to that (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 11:45:31 AM EST
    technique yet outside of combat zones.

    Parent
    They? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:33:47 PM EST
    Combat zones?  

    Surely there is more than one set of "they" that sees some value in attacking us and our institutions.  Some of them are right here among us in the good ole USA.  

    Religious zealots, militia members, anti-abortionists--any number of unstable, off their rocker anti-societial types.  

    There is no homogenious "they".

    Parent

    As soon as someone takes out a (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 02:35:04 PM EST
    jet with a 50 cal, I'll get that gun control that I want.  At this time, nobody wants to...yet.

    Parent
    really? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CST on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 03:03:59 PM EST
    I bet we wouldn't.

    Is a single jet really more valuable to the country than about 10,000 people every year?

    If it didn't happen after Virginia Tech, with all the warning signs in place, and a clear "smoking gun" scenario for someone who shouldn't have had a gun, it's not gonna happen.

    Parent

    I was only talking about large caliber (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 05:28:05 PM EST
    weapons.  I have no idea how to remedy the smaller stuff.  Sadly this past weekend we had a murder suicide in our neighborhood.  A known by all unhappy marriage plus alcohol and a gun.  The step father went after the daughter too but she locked herself in her room and he tired of trying to get in when the wife who was shot in the stomach managed to get to the phone and call for help.  He returned to shoot her in the head and then did himself.  This will affect nothing around here though.

    Parent
    I think the country of origin restriction (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 08:49:36 PM EST
    is idiotic.  However, the photos I have seen of the images from the body scanner are quite generic and seem less invasive than a clothed pat down, to which a Caucasian friend returning from Europe after Christmas was subjected.  

    I keep wondering what the heck (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:24:30 AM EST
    Cuba did?

    Parent
    Maybe Obama is reacting to political (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:27:33 AM EST
    predictions re FL?  

    Parent
    Went commie... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 09:15:38 AM EST
    and that we never forgive...unless of course you manufacture a ton of plastic crap we want...then its cool to be commie.

    Parent
    its what we do best (none / 0) (#5)
    by pluege on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:04:43 PM EST
    they also waste valuable resources and divert attention from real threats.

    hysterical irrational reaction r us.

    Well our present (previous) system has worked (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:08:39 PM EST
    so well. We wouldn't want to change it....

    Would we?

    Wasn't it recommended (none / 0) (#11)
    by Natal on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:33:36 PM EST
    by Homeland Security sometime ago that citizens should keep a watchful eye and be vigilant regarding their surroundings?  Well the citizens on the plane who disarmed the terrorist were doing exactly what was asked of them.  They prevented a disaster.  So the system worked! Why change it?

    Parent
    The ACLU needs to get updated (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:55:05 AM EST
    Full body scanners are being implemented at Heathrow within weeks.

    And how do you do this?

    [T]he government should adhere to longstanding standards of individualized suspicion and enact security measures that are the least threatening to civil liberties and are proven to be effective.

    without some kind of profiling?

    Individualized analysis (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:08:10 PM EST
    is not profiling, which is based on groups.

    Parent
    But how do you do that? (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:14:37 PM EST
    You come through the line and I think you look suspicious.  Why do I think you look like suspicious - do you fit a profile? Or are we going to just base it on superficial things, like, your eyes are shifting too much? I realize there are some things you can look at - did the guy buy a one way ticket (but wait, my aunt is takig my grandfather back to her house in Hawaii this week - she bought him a one way ticket - should they look at him a second time?)

    Seriously - I'm not an expert on this, but any individual analysis is going to be rooted in some kind of group profiling.

    Parent

    hmm .. i think you are confused. (none / 0) (#53)
    by nyrias on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    Individual analysis is BEHAVIORAL profiling. Behavioral profiling is different from group profiling.

    Group profiling chooses solely based on you belonging to a group (say a race).

    Behavioral profiling chooses depending on what you DO. The difference should be self-evident. In particular, the "member to a group" for a person would not change (say he is an African American) but certainly his behavior can change from moment to moment.

    Note that I am not saying behavioral profiling is 100% accurate although i am saying that it is fundamental different.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:47:43 PM EST
    So Mohammed Atta, as evidenced by the tapes we all saw, was calm and cool and collected as he went through the airport on 9/11.  He made it through security, they checked him out, and everything was ok.  They did an individual analysis of him, and he passed.  We all know what happened after that.

    Parent
    The 9/11 terrorists, the 12/25 bomber (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 09:29:21 PM EST
    and others -- almost all had "red flags," from overstayed student visas to flight lessons (ended after learning how to take off but not how to land!), father calling the embassy, etc., etc.

    These are factors in individualized analyses -- all factors known long before they got to airports, vs. your thinking that this would be done solely at the last minute.  

    Comment above on behavioral profiling also is apt.  The concern is that it not be racial or ethnic or religious profiling.

    Parent

    There are so many... (none / 0) (#27)
    by desertswine on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 10:04:43 AM EST
    other ripe targets besides airplanes. You can't possibly guard everything.

    And that is NOT a valid argument ... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by nyrias on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 12:44:13 PM EST
    for guarding NOTHING.

    You make it difficult (or costly in terms of resources) for the terrorist to hit high value target, so to limit their attack.

    This is similar to traffic laws. You can't possibly eliminate all traffic accidents .. does that mean that we should not do something to bring the rate down? Of course not.

    Parent

    As usual... (none / 0) (#80)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 03:44:16 PM EST
    ...Prof. Campos lays it out much better than I could ever hope to.

    Terrorball

    Decent, but (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 03:52:31 PM EST
    it's a fallacious argument to say folks are overreacting because no one died.  No one dies because they were lucky - the bomber didn't set the bomb correctly and it didn't ignite properly, so passengers were able to douse it and subdue him.  Had he created it properly, the plane would have gone down in a Metro Detroit suburb and killed hundreds of people.

    Parent