Travellin' Fool

People like you bother me. You're all about your rights being looked after, but when someone else expresses concern over THEIR rights, you seem to think you are more important. Maybe some people in this country feel it's not infringing on their liberty to enact some of the security measures that you so vehemently oppose. What makes you're point of view so special? I'll tell you, nothing. Freedoms apply in many different forms and many different ways. I feel that my freedom is being protected if they SSSSSearch the Arab looking guy or pull aside the guy with the practical joke. That's my constitutional right.

robvberg

I agree with you that these are not easy items to make or carry. I was answering his comment about there not being any liquid explosive and I named nitro as a simple example and added why it is not used that often by explosives people. While it might trigger an alarm if swabbed, not everything is. The british security services have worked against the IRA and are pretty good against bombings. I have not heard any good background comments but they did feel that these guys were serious, and several did have uncovered time in pakistan, suspected to have training time. Again I agree with you that it is not easy, is the risk higher than a cargo bomb. I would say yes before the new restrictions. A bomb in a pressurized cabin will have more effect than the same bomb in a random spot in the hold.

GoingAway

Will it still be your right when they decide to go after the White Males, or is it only okay when its a group that YOU are not a member of?

bdschobel

What utter nonsense! Is it also your constitutional right to have that Arab-looking guy locked up? How about executed? Doesn't he have any rights?

In the 1600s, the people of Salem, Massachusetts, killed a bunch of women as witches. Were the witch-hunters merely exercising their rights? How did the "witches" feel about that, I wonder?

Bruce

Superguy

I also wonder how those witch hunters would have felt to learn that those folks weren't actually witches, but were suffering for ergot poisoning. They killed sick people because they didn't know any better.

Locking up people based on how they look would be akin to the same thing. It'd be because we didn't know any better. Our successors will probably look at this period in shame.

Travellin' Fool

Yeah good one, just jump to the conclusion that since i mentioned profiling for arab folks i must be a white male. Goddammit I must be a frickin redneck racist! Call the ACLU!!! It doesn't matter what nationality i am or what country i'm from, i'm entitled to my own opinion, oh wait, i'm not because it doesn't jive with yours. I forgot you're all about the constitution till someone disagrees with you.

bocastephen

A very unstable liquid that would likely explode in sufficient quantity long before the terrorists arrived at the airport.

Plenty of experts have already written about how difficult, nay impossible it would have been for these people to carry out the mission they were accused of. Unless they happened to invent something that no weapons manufacturer has yet to discover, the amount, quantity, type and equipment needed to mix sufficient explosives to bring down an airliner would have been quite an amazing undertaking.

Pardon me, but let's not even try to discount the threat of cargo based explosives. These have been used on a number of occassions, in addition to the two you cite. How many attempts are either enough or too few to validate the threat? How about the Air India jet that was brought down due to cargo/baggage explosives. How about the Air India jet that got off easy when the bagbomb intended for it went off in the NRT transfer room when a poor Japanese baggage handler accidently dropped it - otherwise it would have been loaded on its connecting flight - an Air India jet.

This is the same incorrect logic that dismisses out of hand the threat from ground based missile weapons. It just amazes me how everyone still thinks in 9/11 mode - a terrorist threat has to be delivered in person by a terrorist onboard an aircraft to be valid.

I have spent plenty of time studying and writing about aviation security while getting my aviation degrees with flight, airport and airline management concentrations. I studied with world renowned academic and professional people with extensive global experience who affirmed and molded my beliefs. Frankly, airports remain swiss cheese from a security perspective. From passenger screening to baggage/cargo to catering to cleaners to through-the-fence ops, down to the perimeter fence itself - there is no way to fully protect and assure a secure aviation infrastructure. By placing 98% of the threat emphasis on passengers at the screening checkpoint, the government is not doing anything realistic to protect anyone, but rather using politics and showmanship to put the security emphasis where it can be seen and experienced by people. Making them feel safe. Showing them something is being done. Yet in actuality, very little is being done...simply because it's impossible to fully and absolutely protect an airport or aircraft. The government refuses to introduce the concept of 'risk management' to the public for fear of a backlash. The public demands absolutes - but delivery such is impossible. I won't even get into the chemical plants and ports whose security has been crippled by the government's almost psychotic need to pander to or influence voter opinion by throwing all its resources at the passenger checkpoint.

How does sorting out 3oz from 4oz simplify the process? It doesn't. I can't imagine anyone thinking it logical or possible to bring an industrial lighter or torch of anykind with them in the passenger cabin. Forget the security issue - it's a safety issue having any concentration of explosive or flammable liquids or material in the cabin, or on the aircraft at all for that matter. Signs prohibiting such items have been in place since I started flying as a child - they are not new.

Banning Bic lighters and matches is a stupid knee-jerk reaction used for political pandering. Keeping true incindiary items off aircraft (some of them should not be in checked bags either) is a safety issue that should be enforced by the FAA and NTSB who must direct the TSA to screen for specific items and adopt FAA mandated limits on what can and cannot be taken onboard or even be included in checked baggage.

Travellin' Fool

You didn't just slip down that slippery slope, you damn near jumped over it. Questioning and observing someone, which i was aluding to, cannot be compared to locking someone up or executing them.

bdschobel

You are not entitled to your own opinion about factual matters. For instance, today is Tuesday. That's not my "opinion"; it's a simple fact. You may believe that today is Friday, but it's not. Period.

Similarly, you may believe that it's your right to harass Arab-looking people, but that's contrary to law in the United States. Not opinion -- fact!

Bruce

GoingAway

It's the first step in harassment that HAS led to abuse, torture and likely execution, we just haven't heard about it. Want to try again?

Did you read about the Canadian that took a trip overseas on the US government's dime? Should never have been touched - did nothing wrong but he looked wrong and someone said a little something that was a little off and *poof* the guy disappears for a month or two. That is not a country I can respect and that IS this country these days.

BTW - your rights have to do with YOU, not what happens to someone else.

bocastephen

Yes. Quite simply because your viewpoint advocates infringing upon my rights, which you have no right to do.

If you want to volunteer your rights, offer your bags and person for additional screening, open your trunk for every cop who asks, and generally speaking let government authrority have their way with you, please feel free - although I will still make it hard in the background for them to get away with it

I will continue to protect my rights (and yours), regardless of your desire to give them up. I will continue to protect the rights of others whom you would like to see have fewer rights.

You're not really expressing concern over your rights except to posit that people have too many and should get along with less, while giving authorities more.

bdschobel

Actually, the poor guy was sent to Syria -- where he was tortured -- for about a year!

Bruce

Travellin' Fool

I never said "harass", you added that in there. Harassing is not a synonym for detaining or observing. THAT is NOT contrary to the law of the U.S. -- FACT!

bdschobel

Actually, detaining without probable cause is almost the definition of harassing -- and it is illegal in the U.S.

Bruce

robvberg

Yes it is difficult to repeat that attack because we have changed one basic rule. You do not respond to hijackers demands. Before the policy was based on past experience and was similar to bank robberies. Even if you see no weapon, if they say there is a bomb. Do what they say. Until 9-11, no lawyer would let the policy be changed. Most bombings that they have wreckage from suggest timers were used. There are examples of plans for altimeter based bombs but I do not remember when I was studying the topic, that any were ever used. Again no one knows for sure about the air canada flight but since it blew up at height instead of when climbing, it is assumed to be timer. Others especially some in africa are unknown causes.

Yes it must not have been possible because before the change I flew with a survival lighter and was never questioned. I do remember that mini blow torches were banned but I am talking about a standard lighter look that creates a focused flame.


light an explosive and causes it to fizzle or detonate an explosive via det cord etc. Yes it is possible but much more difficult and slow to develop than having a good lighter cupped in your hand and then light the det cord. Again it comes down to competence. The reid character used a bomb setup that would still have probably failed even with a better lighter, but it was much more likely to have succeeded if he had a survival lighter instead of what he used. And I don't see someone sitting in a seat, lighting some matches, starting some magnesium sticks? a soaked pencil? and old WW11 pen detonator and then using that to set off the bomb before somebody became suspicious. Maybe in a bathroom, but again each step added is where more variables come into play and the operation is less likely to succeed. especially since he is hyped up as he is about to die. That is why many suicide bomber missions fail.