Once again, we are all being made startlingly aware of severe lapses in our airline security. This in spite of billions of dollars earmarked for its improvement. What should be done? Is profiling necessary?
31 comments:
Greeene Co Man
said...
Im leaning toward profiling. Not being racist, but of the major terrorist events in US history I can only think of one caused by caucasion male or females. Oklahoma City with McVeigh & Nichols. The rest seem to be some nut job that IMHO shouldn't have been in the states anyway. Too many bleeding heart liberals think this is the worlds safe haven and everyone that can get here should be given a place to live,food stamps,and now healthcare. And we wonder why this country is in the jam it's in. Stop the efin handouts.
It is sad to say, but I think our current system is the way to go, with the exception of increased intelligence measures and to pay more attention to and follow up on tips out of the blue. Regular posters know I am as right wing as it gets, so don't call me on that.
My first reaction was to call for profiling. I have decided it would work for awhile, but not for long.
If we set up designated security gates for those of Middle East descent or those on the verge of the no-fly list, terrorists would just recruit American whites & blacks, Hispanics, Canadians, Brits, or whoever. There are plenty of nut cases out there they could grab.
Think what would happen if some Lobster dude from Maine yelled "Jihad!" and blew up a plane. Total gridlock at airport security.
Increased intelligence gathering and acting on received intelligence aggressively is the answer at this time.
What we are doing now simply will not work. Screening technology can't keep up with the wide range of explosive devices terrorists are developing. Last August, a suicide bomber actually implanted explosives in his body, and injured a Saudi prince. Even full body scans won't pick up those things.
Focusing on keeping things off planes is working against us. Terrorists come up with new ways to blow planes up a lot quicker than we can develop and implement improvements in the system.
The Department of Homeland Security has spent nearly a billion dollars trying to deploy higher-tech screening technologies. They include whole body imaging and an explosive trace detection portal. None of these systems have even been deployed yet.
We need to construct new profiling methods - not just racial or clothing profiling.
To anon above larry d. - First off, get a name. Second, that is one of the worst posts I have ever read on this site since a year or two ago. Whole body imaging has been deployed, as has been explosive trace detection. They have been not used at all airports that you may have used, but they are out there.
Also I would like to know how keeping things off planes is working against us. Explain that, please.
Look, whoever calls himself "Big Nasty" needs some new information. My guess is you've never left Greene County, although I'm sure you will post back claiming to be a world traveler. That is typical.
Explosives trace-detection portals were halted in 2006 after cost overruns. An October 2009 report to Congress by the GAO further stated that "whole body imagers are among a list of systems not yet deployed". They are in place at four or five major airports. That is not the same as being deployed. That is also the precise reason that merely trying to keep things off planes works against us.
You see, while we spend millions of dollars developing this equipment, the terrorists respond and are rapidly outstripping the ability of screening systems to catch them. We can keep spending money, and they will keep adjusting. This massive cost outlay needs to be directed towards finding the terrorists, not their equipment.
That is done through radically changing the way we profile individuals. For example, anyone paying cash for a ticket (especially one-ways) needs to be heavily scrutinized. Terrorists almost always pay with cash, avoiding a paper trail. That is not racially-motivated profiling, and it is also not done. While we play hide-and-seek games with these nut jobs, spending millions of dollars, we could be simply keeping most of them out of the sky.
Whatever. Once again some anon. has used the air I breathe to say the same damn thing I already said twice. I will say it one more time. Increase intelligence gathering, use what you find, and aggressively follow up on new leads.
As an editors' note, there are currently 40 full-body scanners in use at 19 airports across the United States. Just last month, the Transportation Security Administration announced it had ordered 150 more.
It seems to me that a few years back everyone was talking about allowing airline pilots to carry guns, and placing armed federal agents on board some selected flights. Does anybody know if either of these plans were implemented?
Pilots should definitely be allowed to carry guns. They do not pose a threat to anybody. It's not like they would use one to hijack the plane. They could do that on their own.
People don't oppose pilots carrying guns because of that. The problem is that a pilot or federal agent could have his gun taken away, or an innocent party could get hurt while he is discharging it in the line of duty.
Bringing a gun into the mix is not always productive. It may only make things worse.
That would be like saying policemen shouldn't carry guns - it might only make situations worse.
That is what has happened in England, where crimes involving handguns have skyrocketed. What you are saying is basically take guns away from those who would use them in a productive way, and only allow law breakers to use them. Being lawbreakers, theywill use guns no matter what laws you write.
An interesting story ... In 1982 the town council of Kennesaw, Georgia unanimously passed an ordinance requiring nearly every head of household in the town to maintain a firearm and a supply of ammunition. Since enactment of the ordinance, robbery, burglary, and theft have declined.
Home burglary, for example, declined from 55 incidents in 1981 to 11 in 1985. That decline may have been a side effect from publicity, but either way, sometimes even criminals decide that it is just too dangerous to commit crimes against people who are armed.
Hey Marty-- Do you think it will help to increase intelligence gathering, use what you find, and aggressively follow up on new leads? Just wanted your opinion.
The GAO today ordered 300 more full-body scanners for placement at selected airports. This will bring the total on line to approximately 500 at literally hundreds of airports.
Like it or not, this is what is in store in the future. Currently at many airports, passengers can request a pat-down in place of the scan, but few do. Pat-downs at airports are quite ineffective due to a multitude of complaints from women, causing the procedure to be lax and non-invasive. This is not the same pat-down that you would get at the Dade County Jail.
It was also announced today that passengers with connections to certain countries such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and 14 others would be more carefully scrutinized.
If people want rigorous safety measures in place, they will have to become accustomed to longer and longer waits at airports. They should also be ready to allow pat-downs and x-rays without complaining that their rights are being violated. Some women are notorious about complaining when they are patted down - yet I'm sure they would be among the first to complain if a terrorist got through without being subject to the same treatment.
Everyone will have to give a little ground on this. Longer waits, pat-downs, scans, and delays.
Do you think that the guy who jumped that terrorist flying in from Amsterdam with the bomb between his legs was a hero?
After talking with a buddy, we came to the conclusion that he followed the only logical plan of action available to him. Any of us would have done the same thing - not to would mean certain death.
He was only a hero in the sense that his actions saved lives. I'm pretty sure that we all would have reacted the same way. Not many would just sit idly by and watch while everyone perished.
If you were flying in first class you would have. You would also have complained that your topcoat may have been damaged or wrinkled since it was hanging up by the flight deck and where the hell is that wine refill I just asked for?
When we decide to get serious about terrorism, we could see what Israel has successfully implemented to curb terrorism.
We must no longer give enemies the criminal rights and protections that citizen's have like Miranda rights which limit the amount of intelligence we acquire from them. They should instead be tried by a military tribunal.
All those airport cops patting you down and searching you is totally unconstitutional. Any drugs or drug paraphernalia found during one of those illegal searches is inadmissable in court. Isn't anybody else concerned about their civil rights?
So Stonehead is more worried about losing his hash pipe than getting blown to bits by some terrorist who was allowed to pass without being searched?? You've obviously been smoking something other than Winstons. Good thing you're not in charge.
I read a "politically incorrect" article in the Wall Street Journal a week or two ago that stated you are more likely to be struck by lightning than be killed in a terrorist attack. It also lampooned the fact that after going through all the security to arrive safely at your destination, you drive off in a car, where 120 lives are lost every day in vehicle accidents. Anyone have a response to this article?
They sure get a lot of press and dominate the political discourse in our land. They plan a lot, spend virtually nothing, change the fabric of our country, and have us considering civil liberty hari-kari so we don't violate one of our principles. Cheapest advertising program of the 21st century.
How do you fight terrorism without invading the mosques like they are the Mafia? We're so concerned about airline security the multitude of other vulnerable areas seem ignored until they go there and we're all aflutter about that.
Reagan's problem with Communism is they burrow underground like Islamists do now, able to utilize all of our freedom and information against us.
Sorry my 1/16 post wasn't understandable-Since the 9/11 attack we have been constantly focused on airline security-the shoe bomber, the crotch bomber or whatever the topic of the day is. As Marty stated, we think of Islamist terrorism more than the damage done would justify. This is like free advertising, and the terrorists are accomplishing their goals by dominating our newscasts and political thought.
Our vulnerabilities to terrorism as a society go well beyond transportation, and include the water and food supply, the electrical utilities, etc. 10% of Muslims have radical beliefs bent on our destruction. The Japanese we put away during WW2were much less of a risk. A Muslim's salvation is guaranteed if they die in a holy war.
Should we handle this risk like the Kennedy administration handled the Mafia by bugging them? Later Guiliani used the RICO Racketeering laws against organized crime.
Ronald Reagan was head of the Screen Actors Guild after World War 2. Communists were a problem then. Both Islamists and Communists traditionally have totalitarian governments without the civil rights we take for granted. Over here they have the liberty our Constitution grants. There's a ton of info that is public and we have the Freedom of Information Act to mine sensitive data which had been private at one time. They can use the info to destroy America.
Major Nidal Hasan killed 12 at Fort Hood because of gun control on military bases.
In March 1993 President Clinton signed a regulation making military bases "gun-free" except for MP's and military exercises. Guns are not allowed for personal protection.
31 comments:
Im leaning toward profiling. Not being racist, but of the major terrorist events in US history I can only think of one caused by caucasion male or females. Oklahoma City with McVeigh & Nichols. The rest seem to be some nut job that IMHO shouldn't have been in the states anyway. Too many bleeding heart liberals think this is the worlds safe haven and everyone that can get here should be given a place to live,food stamps,and now healthcare. And we wonder why this country is in the jam it's in. Stop the efin handouts.
It is sad to say, but I think our current system is the way to go, with the exception of increased intelligence measures and to pay more attention to and follow up on tips out of the blue. Regular posters know I am as right wing as it gets, so don't call me on that.
My first reaction was to call for profiling. I have decided it would work for awhile, but not for long.
If we set up designated security gates for those of Middle East descent or those on the verge of the no-fly list, terrorists would just recruit American whites & blacks, Hispanics, Canadians, Brits, or whoever. There are plenty of nut cases out there they could grab.
Think what would happen if some Lobster dude from Maine yelled "Jihad!" and blew up a plane. Total gridlock at airport security.
Increased intelligence gathering and acting on received intelligence aggressively is the answer at this time.
Marty is right. Profiling would not work forever. But I would say, if it works for a while, that is better than doing what we are doing now.
What we are doing now simply will not work. Screening technology can't keep up with the wide range of explosive devices terrorists are developing. Last August, a suicide bomber actually implanted explosives in his body, and injured a Saudi prince. Even full body scans won't pick up those things.
Focusing on keeping things off planes is working against us. Terrorists come up with new ways to blow planes up a lot quicker than we can develop and implement improvements in the system.
The Department of Homeland Security has spent nearly a billion dollars trying to deploy higher-tech screening technologies. They include whole body imaging and an explosive trace detection portal. None of these systems have even been deployed yet.
We need to construct new profiling methods - not just racial or clothing profiling.
Easier said than done.
Like I said before, beef up intelligence and aggressive follow up. It doesn't have to be pretty or public knowledge.
To anon above larry d. - First off, get a name. Second, that is one of the worst posts I have ever read on this site since a year or two ago. Whole body imaging has been deployed, as has been explosive trace detection. They have been not used at all airports that you may have used, but they are out there.
Also I would like to know how keeping things off planes is working against us. Explain that, please.
Looks to me like you're talking in a circle.
When is the last time you took a jet to L.A.?
Look, whoever calls himself "Big Nasty" needs some new information. My guess is you've never left Greene County, although I'm sure you will post back claiming to be a world traveler. That is typical.
Explosives trace-detection portals were halted in 2006 after cost overruns. An October 2009 report to Congress by the GAO further stated that "whole body imagers are among a list of systems not yet deployed". They are in place at four or five major airports. That is not the same as being deployed. That is also the precise reason that merely trying to keep things off planes works against us.
You see, while we spend millions of dollars developing this equipment, the terrorists respond and are rapidly outstripping the ability of screening systems to catch them. We can keep spending money, and they will keep adjusting. This massive cost outlay needs to be directed towards finding the terrorists, not their equipment.
That is done through radically changing the way we profile individuals. For example, anyone paying cash for a ticket (especially one-ways) needs to be heavily scrutinized. Terrorists almost always pay with cash, avoiding a paper trail. That is not racially-motivated profiling, and it is also not done. While we play hide-and-seek games with these nut jobs, spending millions of dollars, we could be simply keeping most of them out of the sky.
Whatever. Once again some anon. has used the air I breathe to say the same damn thing I already said twice. I will say it one more time. Increase intelligence gathering, use what you find, and aggressively follow up on new leads.
As an editors' note, there are currently 40 full-body scanners in use at 19 airports across the United States. Just last month, the Transportation Security Administration announced it had ordered 150 more.
It seems to me that a few years back everyone was talking about allowing airline pilots to carry guns, and placing armed federal agents on board some selected flights. Does anybody know if either of these plans were implemented?
Pilots should definitely be allowed to carry guns. They do not pose a threat to anybody. It's not like they would use one to hijack the plane. They could do that on their own.
People don't oppose pilots carrying guns because of that. The problem is that a pilot or federal agent could have his gun taken away, or an innocent party could get hurt while he is discharging it in the line of duty.
Bringing a gun into the mix is not always productive. It may only make things worse.
That would be like saying policemen shouldn't carry guns - it might only make situations worse.
That is what has happened in England, where crimes involving handguns have skyrocketed. What you are saying is basically take guns away from those who would use them in a productive way, and only allow law breakers to use them. Being lawbreakers, theywill use guns no matter what laws you write.
An interesting story ... In 1982 the town council of Kennesaw, Georgia unanimously passed an ordinance requiring nearly every head of household in the town to maintain a firearm and a supply of ammunition. Since enactment of the ordinance, robbery, burglary, and theft have declined.
Home burglary, for example, declined from 55 incidents in 1981 to 11 in 1985. That decline may have been a side effect from publicity, but either way, sometimes even criminals decide that it is just too dangerous to commit crimes against people who are armed.
Hey Marty--
Do you think it will help to increase intelligence gathering, use what you find, and aggressively follow up on new leads? Just wanted your opinion.
I agree 100% on that. It's great that you people are finally thinking on your own.
The GAO today ordered 300 more full-body scanners for placement at selected airports. This will bring the total on line to approximately 500 at literally hundreds of airports.
Like it or not, this is what is in store in the future. Currently at many airports, passengers can request a pat-down in place of the scan, but few do. Pat-downs at airports are quite ineffective due to a multitude of complaints from women, causing the procedure to be lax and non-invasive. This is not the same pat-down that you would get at the Dade County Jail.
It was also announced today that passengers with connections to certain countries such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and 14 others would be more carefully scrutinized.
If people want rigorous safety measures in place, they will have to become accustomed to longer and longer waits at airports. They should also be ready to allow pat-downs and x-rays without complaining that their rights are being violated. Some women are notorious about complaining when they are patted down - yet I'm sure they would be among the first to complain if a terrorist got through without being subject to the same treatment.
Everyone will have to give a little ground on this. Longer waits, pat-downs, scans, and delays.
Do you think that the guy who jumped that terrorist flying in from Amsterdam with the bomb between his legs was a hero?
After talking with a buddy, we came to the conclusion that he followed the only logical plan of action available to him. Any of us would have done the same thing - not to would mean certain death.
He was only a hero in the sense that his actions saved lives. I'm pretty sure that we all would have reacted the same way. Not many would just sit idly by and watch while everyone perished.
If you were flying in first class you would have. You would also have complained that your topcoat may have been damaged or wrinkled since it was hanging up by the flight deck and where the hell is that wine refill I just asked for?
Mark Russell once pointed out that the rings around Saturn were composed entirely of lost airline luggage.
When we decide to get serious about terrorism, we could see what Israel has successfully implemented to curb terrorism.
We must no longer give enemies the criminal rights and protections that citizen's have like Miranda rights which limit the amount of intelligence we acquire from them. They should instead be tried by a military tribunal.
All those airport cops patting you down and searching you is totally unconstitutional. Any drugs or drug paraphernalia found during one of those illegal searches is inadmissable in court. Isn't anybody else concerned about their civil rights?
So Stonehead is more worried about losing his hash pipe than getting blown to bits by some terrorist who was allowed to pass without being searched?? You've obviously been smoking something other than Winstons. Good thing you're not in charge.
I read a "politically incorrect" article in the Wall Street Journal a week or two ago that stated you are more likely to be struck by lightning than be killed in a terrorist attack. It also lampooned the fact that after going through all the security to arrive safely at your destination, you drive off in a car, where 120 lives are lost every day in vehicle accidents. Anyone have a response to this article?
They sure get a lot of press and dominate the political discourse in our land. They plan a lot, spend virtually nothing, change the fabric of our country, and have us considering civil liberty hari-kari so we don't violate one of our principles. Cheapest advertising program of the 21st century.
How do you fight terrorism without invading the mosques like they are the Mafia? We're so concerned about airline security the multitude of other vulnerable areas seem ignored until they go there and we're all aflutter about that.
Reagan's problem with Communism is they burrow underground like Islamists do now, able to utilize all of our freedom and information against us.
I don't understand that last post.
Sorry my 1/16 post wasn't understandable-Since the 9/11 attack we have been constantly focused on airline security-the shoe bomber, the crotch bomber or whatever the topic of the day is. As Marty stated, we think of Islamist terrorism more than the damage done would justify. This is like free advertising, and the terrorists are accomplishing their goals by dominating our newscasts and political thought.
Our vulnerabilities to terrorism as a society go well beyond transportation, and include the water and food supply, the electrical utilities, etc.
10% of Muslims have radical beliefs bent on our destruction. The Japanese we put away during WW2were much less of a risk. A Muslim's salvation is guaranteed if they die in a holy war.
Should we handle this risk like the Kennedy administration handled the Mafia by bugging them? Later Guiliani used the RICO Racketeering laws against organized crime.
Ronald Reagan was head of the Screen Actors Guild after World War 2. Communists were a problem then. Both Islamists and Communists traditionally have totalitarian governments without the civil rights we take for granted. Over here they have the liberty our Constitution grants. There's a ton of info that is public and we have the Freedom of Information Act to mine sensitive data which had been private at one time. They can use the info to destroy America.
Major Nidal Hasan killed 12 at Fort Hood because of gun control on military bases.
In March 1993 President Clinton signed a regulation making military bases "gun-free" except for MP's and military exercises. Guns are not allowed for personal protection.
Post a Comment