tailfirst

No water, no carry-ons, no passengers.

Poor airbus two floors of nothing.

Nachtswerg

According to the reports even at 4AM CST on the 10th, this plot was known about months ago. There was mention that Bush and Blair discussed even when they met a while ago. Even prior to the announcement yesterday, one of our fellow FTers posted a 'Heads-up!' note that something was going to come down heavily.

So, while I'll agree that the monkeys take over the zoo when the government (ANY government, actually) when an emergency pops up, I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt that there was some preplanning on reacting to the arrests, at least at the federal level.

If you ask me, the reactions of the governors of states who have decided to deploy the National Guard is far more kneejerk. I'm under the opinion that the new presence of the men and women in camo is for crowd control and has nothing to do with protecting the airports from terrorists.

Nachtswerg

After reading several of these topics, I've decided that perhaps I've just lucked out so far. DFW yesterday was no different in the C elite line than it was any other day. ABQ seemed quite normal, as well.

I've seen several 'no electronics' notes about, but I haven't seen anyone actually having their laptops banned. Has this actually happened to anyone?

Also, I agree that the banning of all liquids is pretty knee-jerk, but can someone give me a better policy in the face of the plot? Should the ban be 'If you're dark skinned or carrying a koran, you can't have liquids?'

The funny thing is, I always thought the bans were just goofy. If you ask me, any headphone cord could be used to choke someone (as well as shoe laces, for that matter) and the pin on belts can be easily sharpened into a pith'ing tool, but we don't ban them.

Those who are thinking that this is a great way for the TSA to triple its budget, I think you're right.

Nachtswerg

Indy, you're not alone in your opinion. I'll be joining you under the bridge very soon!

Nachtswerg

Had we lost the war, it would have been seen as a criminal act. History is the purview of the victor.

bnarayan1511

Thank you for making my point.

Had we done nothing in Boston because we worried about breaking a law, we'd be drinking tea with cucumber sandwiches (which I happen to love, btw)

exerda

Perhaps implement a slightly better thought-out policy, such as one that disallows the carry on of liquids over a certain volume--say, no full shampoo bottles or cups/bottles of beverages for the short term--but allows on things like lip balm, cosmetics, toothpaste, etc. At least in travel-size amounts... I mean, they're confiscating 0.5 oz tubes of lip balm, 2 oz. bottles of eyedrops, etc. It would take someone carrying quite a few of those (or many, many people carrying one or two each) to get enough materials to make any real explosive threat.

Instead, the policy as implemented really shows that the TSA / DHS was not thinking about this issue AT ALL and did indeed knee-jerk in its reaction. I would hope for all the money we're throwing their way that they could have at least anticipated a problem that is documented and has been tried before over ten years ago!

Now you're sounding reasonable... and I suspect that this is how those of us who you feel are the chicken littles of the group here think, too.