Originally Posted by J-M
Totally different, not that I'd expect you to understand the difference. One is a public display, the other is available only to the appropriate security staff who will use it for security (we are talking ideal conditions here). One is intended for public humiliation and racism, the other is a crime-fighting tool that is useful.
... both are effectively public displays. And intentions don't necessarily matter; outcomes do.
Originally Posted by J-M
Yes, we should screen as well as possible however if the TSA were to implement this stuff (ex. swabbing every person's clothing for explosive residue, checking <gasp> shoes, jackets, bags, etc. for ALL people it would do two things:
1. People like yourself would be screaming about how their rights are being violated.
2. The security line would take 4 hours to go through.
Wrong on both accounts. 1. Depending on design and implementation, not necessarily. 2. Better technology/implementation would make sure that the lines would not even exist.
Originally Posted by J-M
I'm advocating good security for everyone, but hightened security for those most likely to be a terrorist.
You can term it however you want, but here's a reference to what I said before:
Originally Posted by GUWonder
People who hate will always find a way to justify their hate. Some may couch it in more attractive language than others, but the underlying sentiment of hate along ethnic/religious/tribal lines will remain just as ugly in the open eyes of those with good morality.
Originally Posted by J-M
Finally we agree on something
... illegal immigration MUST be stopped, and I do criticize Bush for not doing enough to stop it.
... I don't criticize Pres. Bush on this matter, for Congress is, in Bush's terms, the Beast.
[The Bush Administration doesn't even have a policy on this matter; they just have lip service.]
Originally Posted by J-M
Not very effective, because they are trained not to divulge that info
Oh, how little some here know about how most terrorists, especially of the suicidal variety, are "trained". "Resisting" interrogation and "not divulging info" is not a suicidal terrorist's core competency; it really isn't.
Originally Posted by J-M
Not really seeing a link here... care to expand?
If you've missed or misconstrued a lot of other "links", there is no point in my caring to expand on that item or others.
Originally Posted by J-M
The fact is your ideas are pretty good ones by and large, but they still do nothing to solve for the problem of isolating and stopping terrorists at the security checkpoint. Unless you'd like bodyscanners, "sniffer" machines, explosive detection swabs, etc for every person every time (at the cost of $$$ and time), then I see no viable alternative to a well-thought out, well-executed profiling system.
Are you also operating partially on the basis of the trite comment that "guns don't kill people, people kill people"?
The fact is that stopping terrorists at airport security checkpoints does little to manage the overall security threat and risk levels. The threat is not eliminated; just pushed to a different part of the system. [And racist profiling and the associated harassment has resulted in threat levels increasing as a consequence of racist profiling and harassment in more than one situation.]
For US$500 billion -- which is the minimum security-related response expenditure to 9/11 (as tied by the Administration) -- could do a lot more in eliminating terrorists and their capabilities. All it takes is being far more careful about engaging in foreign entanglements; after all, 500 billion dollars can easily "buy off" people (directly and indirectly) in such a way that the rug is pulled out from under the feet of extremists.
By the way, you're thinking of using currently deployed technology and using current state processes; I'm not.
That's why the "cost" and "process time" would not be higher than currently. Failure to think outside of the box and a lack of imagination is what gets us in trouble.