This was already covered a few months ago when another poster asked a similar question - I believe there were many thoughtful replies, none of which would ever be considered by the "threat community" because they are too simple and so full of common sense.

Thanks... but even if you had provided a link (which you didn't), and some specific examples, I was more interested in what GUWonder personally thinks will resolve the problem.

I think we have to ask whether there really is a problem in the first place.

Read the Koran and the recorded rants by the Prophet. Go to a few conferences hosted by mainstream Muslim groups and read the literature at these events. Do an honest review of history over the past 1400 years. After this study you will reverse your statement and hang your head in shame.

Exactly. Besides, Atta was placed on the Terrorist Watch List on August 19, 2001 and was still jetting up and down the East Coast on Commercial Airlines.

.... and.

As I said before:

And most of his co-terrorists were too.

Wrong, and not even universally true.

In any event, most all major religions appeal to a variety of people and various aspects of the human condition. Since the human condition is so often described as having conflicted people, everyone will find everything in anything they want when they want. Does mercy involve aborting a fetus with serious defects that will result in a painful, short life after birth? Well, as many of us know, the answer to that question varies even amongst members of the very same church, mosque, synagogue or temple .... all while often drawing on the same texts and persons as their co-religionists.

... and of course bigots will find what they want while ignoring that which they wish; and their fellow bigots, the extremist fundamentalists, will do much the same. No irony there. As is said, don't hate your enemy so much that you become indistinguishable from the enemy. Apparently that lesson is missed on many.

That said, it seems like there are more than a handful who share the "thinking" of the "RaHoWa" crowd which attends the World Church of the Creator and David Duke rallies. Pretty sad, but not surprising.

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.

As I said before, you seem more intent to discuss Arabs and Muslims than in discussing ID and how it relates to security. Each one's motivations is their own.

Sometimes A is A, with or without the sounds.

By the way, many of those in the so-called "liberal 'PC' world" in the US seem pretty comfortable with racist profiling built on premises of bigotry against "A-rab"- and "mah-zlems". Alan Dershowitz is just one example.

You can ask anything you wish, but until you give me an answer to the following question:

I have no interest in fully answering your questions any more than I am interested in answering the questions of those who are part of the Christian Identity, Jewish Def. League, or Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan organizations (by whatever name they or their sympathizers choose).

... and I'm not anti-TSA, although there is room for improvement with the TSA too.

I'm not here to do research, or to provide material support, for members or sympathizers of the Christian Identity, Jewish Def. League, and Muslim Brotherhood type outfits/movements.

Run a search, you'll find more than one suggestion.

Well, now you are profiling and that is just not acceptable. That blue haired granny, or the frequent flier with a couple of million miles under his belt, SSSS!

Asked and answered, such a shame you didn't actually read that post of mine you just quoted. I'll highlight the answer for you, so you'll be sure not to miss it:

I do believe that this is a type of "system" such as that which you are referring to. So, in the most simple form of answer: Yes.

Now may I please have an answer to my question?

I'm not asking for your research. I'm asking you to tell me how you would answer this question:

How would you propose that we improve our screening process to improve safety and reduce the liklihood of another terrorist attack?

It doesn't even require sources, which should make it a very easy question to answer.

So, yes, you are admitting to be a fan of mandating ethnic and religious identifiers on national ID cards?

If yes, why not just require that:

a. people who are jewish wear a yellow star on their sleeve; and
b. people who are muslim wear a green band around their head; and
c. people who are christian get marked on their head with a red cross?

That's going to be the outcome anyway, especially once RFID tags are mandated. So would it be correct to say that this is what you are suggesting?

Those are two different problems with multiple solutions, some of which are the same and some of which are not.

I am not here to redesign aviation security, but here's a sample of possible considerations (in random order):

1. Better technology, especially for "bulk area screening" -- of all passengers (and their belongings) and certainly cargo passing through; this is screening for explosives, flammables, gunpowder and other combustibles (including chemicals that can be assembled/mixed for such outcomes).

2. Managed, controlled borders.

3. Make FAMs less readily identifiable or provide them with weapons that cannot be used by others.

4. More intrusive randomly-timed background checking of all federal government employees working in or with the aviation industry.

[5. Torture of passengers until they confess that they are a terrorist. Not. ]

5. Institute the military draft for all men and women between the ages of 18-40 in the US who have not served before. [And no, not for 22 years of service. ]

6. More often prosecute and pursue actual criminal acts and government corruption and stop spinning our wheels on conspiracy theories and alleged conspiracy plot participants.

... and the list goes on and on.

Run a search, and you'll find a far more comprehensive list of what I've suggested or seconded ..... and it won't be a product like that found in Europe pre-V-E Day.

I fly 2-3 times a week and have never been asked to remove my ID from the plastic sleeve in my wallet. I walk up to the TSA agent with my carry on bag in one hand, boarding pass and wallet in the other. I have my wallet folded backwards with my ID on the front. A quick check and I've always been on my way.

Happy travels!!!

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.


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.

I'm advocating good security for everyone, but hightened security for those most likely to be a terrorist.

Finally we agree on something ... illegal immigration MUST be stopped, and I do criticize Bush for not doing enough to stop it.

Fair, but isn't it a little too late once we're already ON the plane. Let's stop terrorists before they get that far.

Does nothing to solve for the problem of terrorist passengers, but would benefit the employee sector.

Not very effective, because they are trained not to divulge that info

Not really seeing a link here... care to expand?

Sounds like rhetoric with not very much to do with aviation security.

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.

... both are effectively public displays. And intentions don't necessarily matter; outcomes do.

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.

You can term it however you want, but here's a reference to what I said before:

... 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.]

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.

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.

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.