so, the terrorists win...

[coolian2]

It's a colossal waste of time if nothing else. When I flew to Houston last week the person in front of me taking off his shoes and jacket was an airline pilot.
That's efficient screening.

but surely anyone could be a jihadist....if they're in texas military bases they could be flying your 757 into dallas fort worth, by your logic.

 

[BVS]

Yes, it is. It's annoying and stupid and pointless.

Annoying? Yes. Taking off shoes can be humiliating, but a jacket? Until technology catches up, what else do we expect?

 

[coolian2]

not much has really changed since 9/11. the only thing for sure is that nobody is going to successfully hijack a plane any more, passengers won't stand for it. hell, you're not really even going to have much/any luck trying to blow it up.

 

[martha]

Annoying? Yes. Taking off shoes can be humiliating, but a jacket? Until technology catches up, what else do we expect?

Some kind of respect.

And technology to catch up.

 

[coolian2]

technology has caught up. it's whether people accept the full body scanner or not....and if governments are willing to cough up for them.

 

[martha]

Why do I have to submit to a virtual strip search? Why does some TSA yahoo get to look at my tits? Are there no explosive-sniffing dogs? Are there no other detectors to find this shit?

How much more bullshit will people put up with to remain "safe"?

 

[coolian2]

Why do I have to submit to a virtual strip search? Why does some TSA yahoo get to look at my tits? Are there no explosive-sniffing dogs? Are there no other detectors to find this shit?

How much more bullshit will people put up with to remain "safe"?

you've got a good point, i really only support full body scanners because i'm under the (probably misguided) notion they'll speed things up. i had a friend miss a flight because of how bad the security lines at lax were, and she joined that line with 30 minutes before departure.

and yet people have to just leave their checked bags practically unattended with the tsa in a crowded departure hall at the same airport. you could easily whack a bomb in there and blow a whole lot of people up before the bag even gets scanned, and you'd double the paranoia because people would think you were trying to get it on the plane.

that's the problem with terrorists. they're stupid and actually quite un-imaginitive. i guess after this post i'll be subjected to another totally random gate pat-down and complete search of my carry on.

 

[deep]

19 U S Airports are currently using scanners.

Current use of whole-body scanners is limited to 19 U.S. airports and is optional, with pat-downs an alternative.
Full-body scanners, unlike the standard archway metal detectors currently used in airports around the world, use radio waves to generate a picture of the body that can see through a person's clothing and spot hidden weapons or packages.

Dutch, Nigerians to use full-body scans for flights - Yahoo! News

Once we have a plane go down, scanners will be in all airports.

 

[coolian2]

(s)he's(?) got a gun!

 

[deep]

and the sniffer missed it.

 

[INDY500]

Once we have a plane go down, scanners will be in all airports.

They could always go back to altitude-detonated bombs in checked luggage or an "isolated extremist" on the ground with a shoulder-fired rocket launcher.

 

[maycocksean]

He was arrested and read his Miranda rights (right to be silent). Apparently he talked (bragged) the first day anyway.

I have never blamed the current administration for the failed attack, although I disagree with some policy changes they've made, but can you defend their words and actions in the first 72 hours after the attack? Don't forget, this thread was started to respond to the preposterous new rules about not leaving your seat or covering your lap the final hour of a trip.

I'm still in the process of forming my opinions on this incident and the administration's response to it. At least for now, I don't have an issue with their delayed response. I think it might have been a poor decision politically, but I don't feel that represents a major national security failure. Some idiot tried to blow up a plane and failed. Is it really necessary to have an immediate press conference over that? Maybe. But I do think it's debatable.

Of what I've read on this incident so far, I think this article by Amanda Ripley in the most recent issue of TIME best represents my point of view at present:

What Airline Passengers Can Learn - TIME

I tend to be very leery of wars on ideas--the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and yes, the war on terror. These kinds of "wars" are quite difficult to "win" and I think the terminology tends to oversimplify complex situations.

I know this might come as a suprise to you, but I am open to some sort of profiling as a means of zeroing in on potential terrorists. I don't know. I'm just appalled that this guy managed to evade the system, when his own father was trying to sound the alarm. It boggles the mind that this guy at the very least wasn't pulled aside for extra screening. I don't know that blatant racial/ethnic/religious profiling would be very effective (after all John Walker Lindh types would easily get around that), but I do feel there needs to be more targeted screening and less of the ineffective blanket screening that Martha is complaining about.

 

[Dalton]

Check your facts, Ann.

 

[deep]

They could always go back to altitude-detonated bombs in checked luggage or an "isolated extremist" on the ground with a shoulder-fired rocket launcher.

I could think of ten ways to bring down a plane. But I won't post them.

The best thing to do would be to put passengers suspended animation, like they do on all the Sci- Fi films. Why does one need to do anything but travel?

Seriously give everyone a couple of ambiens and strap em in until the plane lands.

 

[maycocksean]

They could always go back to altitude-detonated bombs in checked luggage or an "isolated extremist" on the ground with a shoulder-fired rocket launcher.

So what's the solution INDY? Who do we bomb? We're sending more troops into Afghanistan, so let's drop the tired "isolated extremist" nonsense--obviously Obama understands the threat terrorism presents. But what else should he be doing? Please, enlighten us.

 

[Dalton]

Why do I have to submit to a virtual strip search? Why does some TSA yahoo get to look at my tits? Are there no explosive-sniffing dogs? Are there no other detectors to find this shit?

How much more bullshit will people put up with to remain "safe"?

I gotta say, I really don't understand this logic at all. If they told me that they could eliminate the possibility of terrorist attacks on airplanes by sticking a probe up my ass that makes christmas lights shine out of my eyes. I'm all for it.

It might make me reconsider driving to Denver instead of flying, but thems the breaks.

I've flow NW Amsterdam to Detroit a dozen times and will make that trip again in April. I'd like to make it back.

 

[maycocksean]

I could think of ten ways to bring down a plane. But I won't post them.

The best thing to do would be to put passengers suspended animation, like they do on all the Sci- Fi films. Why does one need to do anything but travel?

Seriously give everyone a couple of ambiens and strap em in until the plane lands.

Disagree. All it takes is one "isolated extremist" to hold that Ambien in his mouth and spit it out later and he'd be able to act with impunity on that plane.

 

[BVS]

They could always go back to altitude-detonated bombs in checked luggage or an "isolated extremist" on the ground with a shoulder-fired rocket launcher.

And once again your profiling wouldn't stop this, so what's your point?

 

[martha]

I gotta say, I really don't understand this logic at all. If they told me that they could eliminate the possibility of terrorist attacks on airplanes by sticking a probe up my ass that makes christmas lights shine out of my eyes. I'm all for it.

I refuse to live in fear, and I refuse to give up whatever Constitutional rights I still might have because some idiot wants to set his nuts on fire. It has to end somewhere, or soon we'll have nothing left.

 

[Dalton]

What constitutional rights are you giving up? The right to keep your shoes on?

 

[martha]

Search and seizure.

 

[Dalton]

Don't fly.

 

[Dalton]

This whole thread reminds me of this clip.

YouTube - Everythings Amazing & Nobodys Happy

 

[martha]

Don't fly.

That's not a solution. That's rolling over and showing your belly and letting anyone do whatever they want. I'm not willing to give up that easily. The TSA and the Fatherland Homeland Security department are still agents of the United States government and still have to follow the Constitution. At some point reasonableness has to come back.

What else do I "don't" do because it's easier for everyone to give up rather that insist on rights?

 

[Dalton]

You don't think there's any reasonable reason to have security measures before boarding an airplane?

 

[martha]

You don't think there's any reasonable reason to have security measures before boarding an airplane?

Please quote me where I said that.

 

[Dalton]

Note the question mark at the end of my sentence. I've always agreed with John Lennon, "Give punctuation a chance."

 

[ntalwar]

They could always go back to altitude-detonated bombs in checked luggage or an "isolated extremist" on the ground with a shoulder-fired rocket launcher.

There are countermeasures for those already - maybe not used widely however (except for El Al).

 

[martha]

Note the question mark at the end of my sentence. I've always agreed with John Lennon, "Give punctuation a chance."

I'm standing by my declarative sentence.

 

[INDY500]

That's not a solution. That's rolling over and showing your belly and letting anyone do whatever they want.

But you'd give up flying with no fuss if you were told it was necessary to save the planet?