Being self evident, it does not require "making." I am sure you disagree with it, as do your other self styled patriots.

The point, of course, is that you are making an argument that to date has been generally rejected.

You sound eager to be proved right.

Any given day, a terrorist can succeed in the right set of circumstances. Unfortunately, the steps required to positively subject cargo to the level of scrutiny required aren't commercially feasible. So we do what e can, with what we have.

The notion that since we have "defeated" all terrorist attacks by hardening cockpit doors and angry passengers is patently absurd.

Actually, it does, if we're going to have a serious and honest discussion here.

So you're appealing to the "authority" of opinion polls? First, it's "self evident" that people make irrational decisions when they're afraid. Second, majority opinion is hardly incontrovertibly correct. A majority thought that blacks should be slaves and women should not have the right to vote. The idea that blacks should be free and women should have suffrage was "generally rejected."

I'd prefer an actual argument, instead of the flawed tactic of appealing to a false authority.

Actually he's not appealing to any authority. He simply made up an unsubstantiated fact and hoped it would not be challenged.

Finding supporting facts takes time, and the act of reading source material has a nasty side-effect of causing one to think. The last thing the far-right wants to do is have an informed debate. It would only slow down the consolidation of power and restraint on freedom it desires.

I can agree with that, having read thousands of pages of "security" related material last semester, and having thousands more pages on my reading lists for this semester.

Umm, the point being that the cockpit doors hardening and having aware pax reduces the chances of an inflight takeover to basically nil.

The no-fly list is so easily defeated that it's utility in no way, shape, or form outweighs the loss of liberty it imposes upon the thousands of innocent people who are placed on it with no reason at all (and no recourse to be removed).

Care to try again?

Your conclusion isn't supported by facts. There are many potential cockpit takeover scenarios that don't rely on the essentially single change you mention. Your willingness to bet your life on it is not one I or many other people are willing to make.

Everyone on your side of the argument makes the specious leap from the reality that it isn't easy to be removed from the no-fly list (at least today), to the notion that it is impossible. This is, of course, untrue, and part of the hyperbole that weighs your side down past the point of credibility.

I'm amazed at how unscreened cargo gets a *shrug* 'we try but it's too expensive, the risks might as well be ignored it's so trivial, lets not talk about this'; whereas the costs (both economic and constitutional) are totally downplayed for the papers-please kabuki process, and in this debate any real costs are 'justified' using any tactics needed.

This, despite the undeniable fact that hardened cockpit doors and the non-sheep pax/hostage mentality have demonstrably mitigated the risks from threats (Reid) that were completely ignored and untouched by the completely ID-checked and kabuki compliant terrorist...

Opps, I used the term Kabuki in a non-hostile context. Guess my phone calls get recorded next :rolleyes:.

And all of them either predicate massive failure on the TSA's part (allowing an object, probably a firearm, past security) or amazing stupidity on the cockpit crew's part (which, outside of training, is essentially uncontrollable were a massive failure in judgement to happen).

It's a well known fact that it's impossible. One's name never really comes off--one get's "clarified." You can search FT to prove this to yourself, or google it if you prefer. It's such that an innoncent person goes from not being able to fly, to merely having to check in with a human every time they want to fly and bring three forms of ID--after waiting months for the "so called" ombudsman to act upon their case. All of this occurs despite no wrongdoing on the victim's part.

So no, it's not a specious leap. Try again.

See above. You can repeat the mantra about a specious leap, but it's a documented fact that "getting off the list" is itself a "specious leap."

Now, I will again point out the part of my post that you snipped (not suprisingly--it proves the galactic futility of the no-fly list)--all you really need to do to beat it is to create or steal an ID. In fact, it's easier than that--alter one's own name (either legally or on a particular booking) such that it's Soundex code is different. It's not rocket science.

So, in short:

1. Innocent people are regularly added to the list, and cannot remove their name. (There is at least one documented instance of a 4 year old on the list--three forms of ID are required to be removed from the list--sort of a conundrum, eh?)

2. The list, by virtue of the primitive technology used to mach names is relatively useless. Secure Flight (the followon) has thus far been unable to overcome these problems, and has failed 9 of the 10 test required by Congress before the TSA can spend money to implement it.

3. Even if #2 might be resolved (unlikely, given the TSA's track record), it really does not matter--it's trivial to fake identification, dummy a credit and job history, etc. Secureflight won't change this, as just about every piece of data it looks at is easily faked, plus the issue that will resolve telling a "sleeper" from someone who just does not do much to get their name in commercial databases.

#3 is the key point here--no matter how invasive and offensive the TSA becomes, the whole idea of "checking ID" being a deterrent is useless to begin with.

Keep trying, though. As I mentioned in another thread, I'll be perfectly happy to explain in great detail to how to defeat the half-baked measures the TSA has bumbled to employ (tromping all over the liberty of US citizens all the while). And if a mild-mannered flyertalker can figure these out, it stands to reason that the bad guys already have.

Keep trying, though. I enjoy whacking a government shill (troll?) around.

If you believe that, you must believe (to be intellectually honest) that the notion we've stopped anyone but 4 year olds, peacenik hippies from Northern California, or Ted Kennedy (D--MA) with the no fly list is patently absurd as well.

Of course, your arguments here have not been exactly chocked full of intellectual honesty or logical consistency.

Well we can look at incidents in the past to see how they've gone. The "shoe bomber," UA 93, hijacking attempts on El Al: examples where passengers, crew and/or cockpit security has prevented terrorists from achieving their objective. Sadly, the passengers on UA 93 died, but they did prevent the terrorists' primary objective -- and did so after they willingly gave the hijackers control of the plane in the first place.

First, the evidence indicates that it's very difficult to get off the no-fly list.

Second, you make the leap from being able to get off to the list being a good policy. People shouldn't be harassed by the no-fly list in the first place, even if they can get off it (which only happens after giving the government all kinds of private documents and effects that people shouldn't have to give the government). If people could get off it immediately at the airport with low transaction costs, I might support the list. Unfortunately, that's not now or ever going to be the case. We could get rid of the list now and bring it back later if it became possible to instantly and permanently remove people from the list at the airport.

Who said that? The question is a risk assessment and many of the items currently being done do not meet the standard. For example, the President of Continental does think that the FAM program is not really necessary given hardened cockpit doors.

And he has no economic skin the game, right? So we should just accept his opinion and enact it. This notion that hardened cockpit doors have rendered airliners safe from takeover is absolutely false.

Everyone that flies has economic skin in this game. He also has a bigger risk. If there was a reasonable scenario in which the FAM's were indispensable and CO didn't have them, the additional liability would be staggering.

CO has about 42,000 employees. I think that it may have some good info and analysis to support his position. In my opinion, it takes a lot of courage for a major airline president to stand up and say that we don't need FAM's. I applaud that.

Of course you do. I call him a man willing to put every single passenger and employee of his company at risk in order to open up two sellable seats on every flight with FAMs.

A successful terrorist attack on his airline (or even on another US flag carrier) would likely cost Continental more money than the loss of a couple of seats here and there. Thus, in his estimate, the risk of a successful attack must be quite low.

Statistically, the risk of a terrorist attack in the US is extremely low. But, since you think it's such a large risk, you might not want to fly Continental, or any other airline for that matter.

The notion that hardened cockpit doors has not provided any improvement is false. Nobody has said that a hijacking is now impossible, just much less probably than it was before.

Uh-huh. In fact, every time a Continental plane takes off, the company puts every passenger and employee on board "at risk." The plane could crash!

Every time you leave your house, you take some risk, and you can't completely avoid it even by staying home! Only the most simple-minded among us believe that risk can be eliminated. Thoughtful people weigh risks against the cost of mitigating them. With regard to FAMs, the cost far exceeds the value of the risk reduction.

Bruce

Good thing no one ever made that contention.

The notion that anything will render airliners safe from takeover is absolutely false.

How about if we park them in the desert and remove the engines? That's the only thing that would make some people feel safe. :rolleyes:

Bruce

Or we could just open up a special seating zone for weapons, so that innocent people won't get caught in the crossfire while you guys have your libertarian shootouts.

You guys is metaphorical, and doesn't refer to you specifically, uness you join those who would "feel safer" were they allowed to protect us all by bringing weapons on planes.

Personally, I was ecstatic to find out an airline executive finally had the guts to stand up and say the FAM program was wasteful given other mechanisms that will prevent the takeover of an aircraft are equally, if not more effective.

He also made it clear the FAM program was responsible for 'taking' First Class seats, against the wishes of the airline, and they didn't like it one bit.

Given the hardened flight deck doors, the expectation of TSA screeners to keep guns off the plane, the willingness of passengers to intervene when they feel threatened, and the expectation that flight crews will never, ever ever ever open that flight deck door under duress or threat, we can conclude the FAM program is pretty much unnecessary.

Even if some evidence shows the presence of the FAMs *could* improve security (by helping the sheeple to feel safer), I see no reason (and nor does CO) for them to occupy First Class seats - except only as an issue of comfort.

HUGE kudos to CO for taking a verbal stand on the issue!

The CEOs of Delta and American said basically the same thing, even earlier.

Bruce

Guns don't belong on planes. Period. That includes FAMs!

I have no desire to "feel safer." I prefer to be safer, regardless of how I (or anyone else) happens to feel. But I'm not willing to write a blank check to the guardians of my safety, because they would certainly spend all the money I have -- and then some! That's the problem. Nobody is opposed to safety per se. Some of us would just like to weigh the additional safety against its cost. Does that sort of analysis interest you, Mike (or Brian)?

Bruce

Actually I did not know that - I thought the airline execs were keeping quiet about these nuisances for fear of retribution. So now I have to ask the question...if they are all on the same page, and are vocal about it, certainly they can put together a stronger lobbying response and get some changes made.

The then-CEOs of Delta and American (Mullin and Carty, as I recall) testified before a congressional committee some time in 2002 or 2003. They said that the FAM program is unnecessary and costs their companies hundreds of millions of dollars a year in unsellable premium seating, among other things. Their testimony was quoted here shortly after it happened and should be searchable.

Unfortunately, it went in one ear and out the other! Congress is convinced that the public wants -- even demands! -- FAMs and all the other ineffective security nonsense. Until we -- the public -- let Congress know that we don't support this silliness, it will continue.

Bruce

Back to the Gilmore decision for a second (mods, where are you?). The 9th Circuit originally heard an appeal based on a lower court decision to dismiss based on the pleadings Gilmore filed -- the ruling was that Gilmore's lawsuit should have been filed directly in the 9th Circuit. According to The Practical Nomad:

The judges' misunderstandings were compounded by their decision to jump from an appeal, motions, and oral argument concerning standing and jurisdiction to a decision on the facts and the merits, without there ever having been any discovery, hearing, cross-examination, or fact-finding proceeding of any sort, either before the District Court or before the Court of Appeals. The only factual evidence considered by the Court of Appeals, so far as I can tell, was evidence about the USA government defendants' (purported) policies, submitted and reviewed by the judges secretly, after the oral argument, and unable to be reviewed, rebutted, or cross-examined by Gilmore or his lawyers.

Gilmore lost, but you CAN fly w/o ID
 

Hi all,

As some of you know, I've been working on the Gilmore case. We're all pretty disappointed, but the good bit of news that came out of all of this is that in its decision the Court has fleshed-out what the TSA secret law really says. It is now clear that travelers do have an option. One can either a) show ID; or b) request secondary screening. As unfortunate as the decision is, it is important to note that one can still fly anonymously simply by requesting a secondary in lieu of showing ID.

If you are correct, that provides an avenue to bypass the infamous "no-fly" list. For instance, if Senator Kennedy (when he was on the list) has simply appeared at the airport without any ID, he would have been designated a selectee, searched and allowed to fly! But if he had presented ID, he would have been stopped -- and actually was stopped, five times. Interesting.

Bruce

Congratulations. According to the ruling, when Gilmore presented himself to Southwest and United Airlines, he was in each case told he could fly by subjecting himself to a more intensive (secondary) search. He refused. This was, of course, before he filed his suit. So it's hard to see how this ruling fleshed out much of anything. It held that the specifics are, in fact, SSI, and through review, that the procedures he was subjected to did not violate either the scope of the procedures or the law. With the sole exception of having the appeal denied on purely jurisdictional grounds, he lost on every particular. It's somewhat like bragging about getting out of the speeding ticket by proving the radar gun hadn't been calibrated, as you are being led away to jail on 5 charges of drunk driving.

Additionally, aspects of the ruling clearly derail much loved arguments here, including burden on a single mode of travel making such mode into a right (Miller v. Reed). So, in short, the ruling further solidifies the notion that you do not have a right to fly. The court also reaffirmed United States v. Davis, which holds search of posessions to be reasonable as long as one is free to leave rather than submit. This section also clearly addresses the legality of behavioral profiling as a component of such a search.

In short, a slap down on every issue of substance. A waste of whoever's money was spent, though I am happy to contribute my share through my taxes in order to reaffirm the principles involved.

Unless he changed his name on the boarding pass, he would still be subject to the no-fly list. The reservation name would trigger the no-fly issue.

Well, if you plan to fly without ID, make a reservation under any name you choose! And pay cash. Maybe "Abraham Lincoln" would get you on board, but who knows? Surely some terrorist somewhere is using that name by now, right? :)

Bruce

We tried that in Pearl Harbor!

The "anything for security" crowd was so terrified of terrorism that they decided to park all of the military airplanes wing-to-wing with the gas tanks empty. They were terrified that the "Japs" were going to steal an airplane. Well, nobody stole any airplanes, so that worked, except when the Japanese came to attack Pearl Harbor (1) we couldn't get the planes in the air to defend ourselves and (2) we had set up easy targets for the Japanese to destroy.

Lesson: "Anything for security" paranoia doesn't work.

Couldn't you have found a relevant example from the crusades too? It's as though any two events in history are ever directly comparable... they aren't.

Curious how this relates to Gilmore, though? Are you putting yourself and your intellect above that of the 9th?

I'd like to hear from somebody who refused ID and was allowed to fly after being SSSSed (obviously nobody here would do that, you wouldn't get your miles!) I wonder whether the rule is really that you have to show ID or not fly, and the 9th Circuit (intentionally or unintentionally) misapprehended the issue. Otherwise what's the point of having domestic no-fly lists.

There are many examples of exactly this when people have lost their ID, such as leaving it at home or having it stolen. You can find examples in a search of this board.

If you see a distinction between this and refusing to produce ID, you're welcome to wait for a response on that point.

The government rules that require that airlines ask their customers to produce photo ID does not require that the airlines refuse transportation to those lacking such ID; failure to possess or produce ID simply results in the full SSSS treatment.

More accurately, I think one can still try to fly anonymously. I'm quite sure the thousands of check-in agents, BP/ID checkers etc. have not all been apprised of this decision. It will probably be necessary to file another lawsuit after being denied the option of flying with a full secondary in lieu of ID. By which time the government will no doubt have plugged that loophole.

Well, lesee here. In the case filed by a guy with an obvious axe to grind, he was offered the option to fly after enhanced screening two out of two times.

Your post sounds more like a fervent hope than a reality.

I don't know. Pearl Harbor, on the other hand, is a pretty recent example of terrorism paranoia going wrong.

It's as though some people want to ignore history entirely, dooming us to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

Forgive me if I don't blindly prostrate myself at the foot of any "authority."

Courts get it wrong sometimes, too.

Quite often, actually. Perhaps Michael Chertoff (the real one!), having been a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals judge, has some familiarity with appeals! If the lower courts were always right, you wouldn't need appeals courts! Of course, this Gilmore decision was made by an appeals court, but the same principle applies: the Supreme Court reviews Appeals Court decisions and does overturn them quite often (necessarily so when two circuit courts disagree!).

Bruce