When You're About To Fly, Who Do You Fear More: Al Qaeda... Or The TSA?
from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept
Kashmir Hill highlights a great quote from Elie Mystal discussing the insanity of the TSA's "standard procedures" in cases such as the groping of a dying woman:TSA. You are supposed to be protecting us, but at this point you are... terrorizing us.But I think the even better quote comes from Julian Sanchez, discussing these same two articles:
At this point, is the average person boarding a plane more fearful of Al Qaeda or TSA?It's a damn good question, though I think we all know the answer.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hang on a second...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oooooh, imagine what a threat THAT shit would be! It seems like there's only one solution to make sure that Al Qaeda is not infiltrating the TSA.
Now announcing the TSASA (Pronounced Sah-sah, to make it fun). Yes, the Transportation Saftey Administration Safety Administration will carry out its duty (ha ha, I said duty) to proactively screen, monitor, and scrotum-twist TSA employees on a random basis.
Step one of this procedure is a pre-employment screening and background check. Once passed, the candidate will be hired on an interim basis, during which he/she is subject to random searches, nudie-scans, and beatings. After three months of this interim employment, the candidate is then considered a vetted employee and may forgoe these checks in favor super-painful ongoing testicle scans (SPOTS, like on puppies, you fools!) and random anal cavity exams (RACE, but this won't be fast, bitch).
With the TSASA (SAH-SAH!!!), you can rest assured that the TSA will be free from Al Qaeda terrorists and octegarian grandmothers wearing diapers (you ever sat next to one of those stink bomb ladies? They're the real terrorists, I can assure you).
But wait, what if Al Qaeda infiltrates the TSASA....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I went to the airport's terminal space,
(Eep opp, ork, Sah-Sah!)
And got groped by a man with a funny funny face,
(Eep opp, ork, Sah-Sah!)
He claimed he would take my shampoo away,
(Eep opp, ork, Sah-Sah!)
And he would threaten me for every word I say!
(Eep opp, ork, Sah-Sah!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(With apologies to Bertrand Russel...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Had me laughing until that part. Now I just feel sick.
If you ever watch the life dwindling out of your grandma due to illness, with an already broken spirit from the indignity and humiliation of needing to wear "diapers", perhaps you'll have the nads to apologize to "old ladies" for calling them terrorists you asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Without a doubt..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Without a doubt..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Without a doubt..
Nope, I think Thomas pretty much got it right. I've flown quite recently and was insulted, rapescanned, and then groped. And to add insult to injury, when I returned back to the US from Japan, TSA in San Francisco *added* a camera to my bag that wasn't there when the Japanese equivalent of TSA rifled through my checked baggage (with me present, unlike the TSA,) and sealed my bag before loading it on the plane. And to add insult to injury...I called TSA looking for a way to send the camera back so that it could be returned, and after spending several hours on the phone and a couple more via email filling out various report forms, nobody ever gave me an address to send the camera to. So not only do they steal your stuff from the bag, but they put your stuff in other people's bags.
I prefer the Japanese way...open the bag in front of the individual, so that they can see exactly what you are doing. Opening the bag in secret, the TSA way, is how things get stolen. If Al Queda did infiltrate the TSA, it wouldn't be too difficult for them to add a bomb to some unsuspecting person's luggage, since they steal or mix up contents of luggage and don't have any sort of oversight to speak of (TSA told me that they did have cameras watching the area, and would review them, but I figured that was a farce because they never called back.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Without a doubt..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Without a doubt..
When I got off the plane, the suitcase hasn't even been opened... but my lock was stolen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Without a doubt..
How do you know that?
I'm pretty sure even before 9/11 they'd chop off locks to seach checked bags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Without a doubt..
Teh YouTube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well since you asked..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well since you asked..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well since you asked..
I answered the question. I have never had a finger layed on me by a TSA agent, and never went through a full body scanner. I have gone through the exact same procedure that i would at a Six flags theme park, except Six flags doesn't make me take my shoes off, but big deal. They search bags also, just without a xray scanner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well since you asked..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well since you asked..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well since you asked..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well since you asked..
I would rather take my chances getting groped then to fly with with a terrorist with the intention of doing harm. So if the score is 0-0, i will still stick to one side over the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well since you asked..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well since you asked..
But this sounds like a trick question, to where if the TSA agent is doing groping and all that good stuff then there is no reason why there should be a "terrorist on the plane with the intention of doing harm".
I see what you did there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well since you asked..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well since you asked..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well since you asked..
Our "Safety" for flying (And coming soon, trains and cars!) is 90% theater and 10% active security. Have you ever watched the TSA employees? I don't see much of a difference in attitude on the job from a Walmart employee. I can't really blame them, I wouldn't want a job where all day I had to grope guys all day for "Security". I just want to know when the fat lady sings so the acting is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well since you asked..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well since you asked..
You are definitely more likely to get to second base with a TSA agent without the wining and dining. Hell, from the sounds of it I'm more likely to get groped by the TSA, and I don't fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well since you asked..
First of all, running the risk of sounding arrogant (of which I'm sure I will be accused anyway) am I the only one that can't seem to take seriously posts that are attempting to be intelligent, yet are riddled with poor spelling and grammar?
Second, Al Qaeda isn't even a real organization - it's a trivial name that the US Government created and applied as a label to give us yet another something to fear - and one that Osama Bin Laden only began referencing after we applied it and it was clear that's what we were dubbing him and his ilk.
Third, (and here's where I usually try to keep my mouth shut because I know if I haven't lost the reader yet, I'm about to) 'Al Qaeda', or more appropriately the un-related group of people we have dubbed Al Qaeda, wasn't even responsible for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11th (you know, the ones that sparked the creation of both the Dept of Homeland Security and the TSA). The only reason those attacks happened was because they were allowed to happen by the same people that brought you the TSA; planes crashing into buildings poses about as much threat to this country as does a polio outbreak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well since you asked..
Based on your third point, expect a polio outbreak (or something similar) that will be allowed to happen. If people are catching on to the truth, they may need a new boogie man. Although, there are many possibilites of what that could be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well since you asked..
As I recall, bin Laden created the group, "al-qa`ida al-jihad" soon after the Soviet forces were in Afghanistan. At a time when the CIA funded and armed these "resistance fighters." Over time the media just dropped the 'al-jihad' part when referencing the group. There've been reports lately from the mass intel gathered from his compound in Pakistan that bin Laden wanted to change the name of the organization to bring back the religious overtones of their message. This in order to draw more Muslims to their cause. Without the "al-jihad" part of their name being spread in the world's media outlet - even al Jazeera no less - the al Qaeda name lost its religious meaning.
With the political war being lost on top of the deadly attacks against other Muslims, al Qaeda had become less of an idealized institution with a Holy Cause to a centralized, yet loosely organized system of thugs with little more motivation than common street gangs.
All this from memory. Imagine if someone did a simple online search for references.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well since you asked..
It's a wel doucemnted fcat taht as long as the fisrt and lsat leters of the word are accrutate, the rset can be jubmled or mising and your bran wil still inertrpet the croerct meaning.
Got it? So getting 'hung up' on intelligent people using bad grammar or spelling is a personal hangup that people need to get over, thinking that everyone has to use language the same way you do, or our 'grandmothers' did is a hangover from what I call the 'educated snob' era where education was somehow a measure of status (only the rich could afford to go to school, and looked down on everyone else). Now that information, knowledge, and 'everything' is out there on the internet for all those 'unsophisticated' people to use, it's harder to look down on their education, so we look down on the fact that they don't write the way we think they should.
If the meaning and the concepts are communicated, does the spelling or grammar really matter that much? Other than to the elite who want something to look down on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well since you asked..
perhaps more significantly, in more formal contexts (not so much in short comments, but when you're trying to make a point and go into a fair bit of detail) it does make it look like you don't care enough to pay attention to the details and such... which is an attitude that often carries over into other aspects of how one thinks about things, thus undermining one's credability.
but only to a point. getting massively hung up over a few minor errors in a context that lacks professional editors and proof readers (who SHOULD know what they're doing and get mocked/reprimanded for failing at it) is quite silly when the message is understood and intelligent. getting your spelling, grammar, and punctuation right is just useful. the closer it is to correct, the lower the barrier for entry into understanding what you are saying.
the tone of combined arrogance and paranoia without reference in grav's post does more to undermine credibility than such errors unless such errors are so rampant as to render the post unintellegable.
(added fun fact: a lot of the rules for 'proper' english grammar that people get all strung out about don't apply to english and never did. they're from Latin. oh, and about never ending a sentence with a preposition? not only is it wrong as used, it's misused. you can't end a sentence with a preposition, not because it's a rule of english, but because if you DO, by the 'rules' of linguistics, it's a POSTposition. which, just by the by, english has. their use is entirely correct)
and yes, i am aware of my own lack of capitalisiation, use of commonwealth spellings, and general spelling/typing issues. not necessarily the specific instances, but in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well since you asked..
From someone who apparently doesn't understand capitalization in English.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well since you asked..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well since you asked..
Says who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well since you asked..
What is it they say though, "if you can't beat them (Terrorists), join them (TSA)" ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well since you asked..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well since you asked..
That is what the TSA is. It is practically the definition of "unnecessary," since in the last 10 years every attempted terrorist act in or around an airport has been thwarted by pre-9/11 tools and techniques. They have only succeeded in convincing us that they're necessary using the phantom of terrorism. Nothing Al Qaeda has done in the last 10 years has caused anything near the anxiety, confusion, and loss of liberty that has been inflicted on us by the TSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well since you asked..
There are NO more terrorists than before, we are in NO more peril than before.
Mission accomplished, George!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well since you asked..
Still worth it, you say?
TSA has also NEVER caught ANY terrorist. Not once, ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well since you asked..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
-New Hampshire state motto
Is that any better??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedoms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not so bad at my small regional airport, but they have made me dread going through security at larger hubs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American gumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American gumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA is just SOOOO thankful for 9/11
Al Qaeda are doubtless very happy with the TSA, the DHS, and the ICE. These organizations are wreaking far more damage to America than Al Qaeda could ever directly cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA is just SOOOO thankful for 9/11
Bingo! This is exactly the point our wonderful overlords keep ignoring. "Terrorism" is never about killing people or knocking down buildings, it's about striking fear in your victim's hearts and changing the way they think & live. So when you look at Americans as a whole, which has had a greater impact on our daily lives: the terrorist actions carried out on 9/11, or the govt actions since then? In a land of roughly 300 million people, the terrorists managed to reach 0.001% (real number there, rough 3000 died that day). Not to be outdone, the govt has since carried on the terrorist mission & changed absolutely everyone else's lives. Well done, gentlemen, well done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False choice you put out there, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The CIA in turn funded what became Al Qaeda to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, as we funded and armed Saddam to act as a barrier to Iran.
Why is it everyone we fund ends up turning around and trying to bite us in the balls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually the USA did encourage Bin-laden against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. All those athletes who were pulled from the Moscow Olympics must feel pretty sore about the subsequent history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The moral here seems to be that the old "enemy of my enemy" adage is dangerous and can backfire badly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It should be "The enemy of my enemy, will be the death of me in the end"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Cuz we keep funding the wrong guy. We funded Iraq, cuz the CIA screwed up in Iran.
Most of "our" (US) problems are due to the CIA being mostly idiots back in the day trying to fight communism with anyone that also was fighting them. They seem to have lived by the idea of: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
take a look at south america... you know all those wonderfully non-democratic states down there? yeah? thank the CIA for most of them. assassinating a democratically elected leader and setting up a dictatorial puppet government in the name of democracy? (actually, more in the name of US hegemony and corporate profit, but having people Know that would make things more difficult)
s good job. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have to frame the question correctly: What do you fear more, someone patting you down or someone shooting you in flight or blowing up your plane?
When you frame the question correctly, there is really only one answer - and it isn't giving the terrorists seats in first class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The thing is, even with the TSA, you still don't know that as an absolute. There's more than one way to get inside the secure area of an airport.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The TSA isn't just for stopping terrorists (like Bin Ladin's left overs), but for stopping all sorts of potential risks to airline passengers.
You have to look back and see how many hijackings we use to have, how many times planes ended up in Cuba, or sat for hours on the tarmac as a crazed gunman held a planeload of people hostage, or how often flights would be diverted for security issues. It was insane.
TSA isn't just about groping your junk. If it was, it would be cheaper to send them to lapdance strip clubs.
Hothmonster: I know the odds, but at the same time, anything above zero is above zero. I appreciate that there are standards and norms for bathtubs, hot water systems, electrical systems (for the jets on my whirlpool tub) and so on. No, those inspectors aren't going to bump my junk, but I am glad they are there. Without them, perhaps it would be safer to walk alleyways in new york at night than it would be to take a bath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sweet. Where do I find those tantalizing statistics to back up your claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
that might help you out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba_%E2%80%93_United_States_aircraft_hijackings
hij ackings... notice the last out of the US commercial hijacking to Cuba was in 1980. in 1970 and 1971 (before pre-boarding screening started) hijackings were a monthly deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you even read that abstract? It basically says that policies instituted in the 70's were sufficient in reducing hijackings and then concluded that the cost of doing so was out of whack. How does that prove your point?
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba_%E2%80%93_United_States_aircraft_hijackings"
Here again we have the hijackings falling off in the late 70's. All this suggests to me is that security in the 70's was probably sufficient. Have the terrorists technological weapons changed so drastically that our increase in airport security is an appropriate reflection?
They used BOX CUTTERS on 9/11 in a hijacking suicide plan that can ONLY WORK ONCE. It will NOT happen again, not that way.
What exactly did you think you proved with those links??!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point of the second one is that when all the hijackings were going on, there was no security at all (you could just walk to the gate... any gate). The changes made in the 70s (adding metal detectors, moving towards screening carry on luggage) were sufficient to stop the hijacking. At the time, it might have been considered security theater, but it has been shown to be effective, even by your own view.
It's only to show that increases in security do help, even if they are not cost effective (depending on the price you apply to lives).
The box cutter thing showed only that the security checks needed to be closer, and that objects that might have been let through in the past (box cutters, example) were no longer permitted. If there was no change, you can be certain that many other box cutter attacks would have occurred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
His take on hijackings is that they are very different now than before since then the passengers were leverage to get something and were only valuable as living hostages. If you chosen to die it was extra bad luck, but not likely for all on board. Being quiet and cooperative was the best way to survive. Unfortunately he passed away from cancer or I would get him to post here in person.
9/11 changed that view point for the public in that a hijacking was only done to kill everybody on board so sitting quietly is no longer seen as a viable survival technique since the perspective is everybody was gong to die if nothing is done.
Keep in mind that back in the 70's it was still common practice to dress in a suite and tie when you were going to fly. now it seems pajamas are more common then suits. Personally I go with a more modest comfy shirt and jeans.
If the hijackers blow you up via a bomb then it would need to be big enough (a shoe bomb in the cabin is not quite enough explosive to guarantee total destruction) and would have to get in some other way or put it in a sensitive spot like next to a gas tank or in the cockpit. They wouldn't go through passenger screening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are sort of missing it on the size of the bombs used. What they are looking for isn't total destruction, rather they are looking to breech the pressure envelop, potentially damaging flight control wiring systems or otherwise disabling some part of the aircraft, making it difficult if not impossible to fly. The idea isn't to blow it up in midair, the idea is to make it crash, in 1 or more pieces.
It is hard to tell, but it is easy to see intent.
Yes, I agree also, people are realizing that just sitting and eating it isn't a good option. But the crazies who would try to take a plane over know that too, and I am sure they will come up with ways around that.
One thing for sure, if you can keep the truly dangerous weapons (guns, knives, similar) off the planes, it makes it safer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I vehemently disagree. While the rank and file terrorist might think his mission is to kill people on a plane, it isn't. Al Qaeda brass, crazy as they may be, were far more interested in weakening American influence, economy, and our ability to act militarily around the world, particuarly in places where Islam is prevalent. They wanted to achieve this by creating initial chaos at in the States followed by us reacting in a way that would turn the world against us, followed by us eventually showing how hypocritical we are regarding freedom.
In the words of one of the people responsible for completing Al Qaeda's immediate goals: Mission Accomplished....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is my point, that on this last part you are super-duper-completely wrongo. What 9/11 showed us is that hijackers no longer wanted ransom, some of them wanted to use the hijacked planes as guided missiles. All the security updates done to stop another 9/11 are completely worthless, because box cutters or no, hijackers can't pull this shit anymore. The passengers simply won't allow it. Unless a terrorist can somehow smuggle an automatic weapon on board, the passengers will always be able to over power them.
And now that they know there's a liklihood that the hijackers want death and not ransom, they're pot-comitted to fighting back.
9/11 can NOT happen again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
9/11 pretty much stopped on the fourth plane, once the passengers found out that the terrorists were using the planes as guided missiles. Had that plane left the same time as the others, and had no contact been made after the other planes hit the towers, it likely would have ended differently. However, once the passengers realized that they were in a no-win situation, they were determined to stop the terrorists...and are lauded as heros (and they were.)
However, given the number of incidents that have happened since where passengers brought a swift end to problems in the air...even when those problems weren't terror related...the days of hijacking are over, period. At least until we get complacent and go back to the "don't do anything and you'll live" attitude. But I don't think that will happen again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: security lowering hijackings
Pointing to one instance of increased security being effective, and concluding that ALL such increases are effective - well, I could call that a specious argument, except that it's not even superficially plausible.
Maintaining vigilance is one thing - creating a police state in the name of 'security' is another. And if you believe that examining the diaper of a 95-year-old woman is somehow an appropriate response to 'terrorist threats', then you should bend down now and kiss those terrorists' feet, 'cause they already own you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: security lowering hijackings
Me: that is pretty much how everything is done to prove things on Techdirt, my friend. Exceptional cases are used to prove that copyright sucks, patents are horrible, and all other things are just terrible because of exceptional cases.
Vigilance requires that you apply the rules equally to all. When you stop doing that, you create the type of hole that a terrorist would exploit. You honestly don't think they would use their own ailing parents to carry a bomb onto a plane? Adult diapers are huge, and could certainly carry a significant amount of explosives. If they didn't check those sorts of things, they would be leaving a huge hole in the system.
I am sorry that someone's 95 year old ailing relative had to deal with it, but that isn't the security people's fault, it's the terrorists' fault. When we stop blaming our security and start putting the blame where it belongs, thing will make more sense.
Sadly, some blogger types like to make a living running off at the mouth about these issues. They don't point out that hundreds of thousands of people a day go through security without an issue, and feel more comfortable flying because of it. Instead they choose to focus on exceptional cases, and try to make a case to take down the entire system because on 0.000001% of cases, it isn't good.
So pointing out one instance where things are better because of security is at least on par with the arguments from the other side. We will never know how many other attacks were stopped because of the security, because, well, terrorists and nutjobs won't bother when they have to face security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: security lowering hijackings
It seems to me that the exceptional case is the one where they caught a terrorist trying to blow up a plane by hiding a bomb in an old person's diaper. In fact, it's so exceptional that it hasn't happened. Yeah, talk about exceptional cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It seems like there has been an increase in explosive devices and I wonder if that is because metal detectors and other scanners are better at detecting weapons vs explosives.
SO instead of them hijacking you they resort to blowing everyone up because they can't get another type of weapon on board.
I think a new security slogan like "Knives save Lives" should be adopted. I'm Pro-Hijacking and anti-blowing-my-nads-up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Before there was pre-boarding screening (aka security theater), hijackings were common, often with guns, hand grenades, and all sorts of weaponry. As those avenues got shut down by security theater, those who wish to do harm have had to go down different routes and look for other security holes to exploit.
The Air India bombing and the Lockerbie bombing played on the lack of security for checked luggage or cargo. That hole has generally been blocked off these days, and doesn't seem to be the way to go anymore. Generally these are also not the most desirable ways to go because they tend to require more people, which goes against the idea of "small cell" and "small exposure" terrorist acts.
The 9/11 attacks pretty much sealed the deal on hijacking, as the US took significant steps (that dreaded security theater again) to limit what could get on planes, and at the same time took measures to separate the flight crew from the on board passengers.
The results that followed are moves by terrorists to try to exploit the small remaining holes. Shoes, underwear, and the like are all holes they have tested out. It seems mostly they are pushing wild eyed morons out to make the test for them. The underwear bomber got very close to getting the job done, but likely wouldn't have had the explosive power to take the plane down. The shoe bomber was similar. The failure of these methods likely discouraged terrorists groups from trying the same thing.
I think they continue to look for holes. Most of the activity at this point seems to be concentrated on finding places with the lowest levels of security at their local airports (Africa seems popular), and use those to connect in transit to international flights.
While it is popular to call the TSA actions "security theater", but from the evidence, it appears to have at least shifted the terrorist actions to areas outside of the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is the TSA going to check for that?
But I am not worried the TSA requires my pinky finger sized non-locking multi-tool pocket knife to be left at home and all my liquids fit in a quart bag.
I forgot about the small knife (1in blade) on my money clip once... when they saw it in the bin they told be I had to ship it or get it confiscated.. since it had personal value I opted to ship it... by walking away from security, putting it in my cell phone case behind my cell phone and going through security again. I still have the money clip. I was young and scared at that time... but I am not sure if I was more scared of getting caught or the fact of how easy it was to get it by security when I tried. I have lost at least 4 nail clippers to security, I feel better about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One Trick Pony
Al Queda didn't take advantage of "poor security". They took advantage of policies created in response to PLO hijackers in the 70s.
An "exploit" like that only works once. So long as the "terrorists" only have box cutters, they have little chance of holding out against a plane full of people that think they are going to die anyways because Al Queda changed the rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bear in mind that the junk patting doesn't do anything to stop the blowing up - and may in fact make it more likely - how about a suicide bomber in the security queue?
As you say, when you frame the question correctly the answer is obvious - but it isn't your answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have no fear - none, zero, zilch, nada - of dying in a terrorist attack while flying on a plane. Yes, if it did happen I would probably die, but the *chance* of happening is pretty much zero. You could fly every day for your whole life and you wouldn't die in a terrorist attack.
The chances of 9/11 ever happening again are almost non-existent. Passengers will no longer think "oh, we'll be diverted and this is just an inconvenience", if there's a hijacker then the passengers will be taking him down. The cockpit door is also locked, so they can't crash the plane. Security is pretty good without groping, so there won't be any bombs or guns getting on board, regardless of any groping policy.
However, the chances of being groped at the airport are significantly higher. You could fly every day of your life, and you WILL be groped, many times. This is very likely to fill most people with a sense of dread at the very real possibility of being sexually assaulted in order to fly on a plane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you frame the question correctly, there is really only one answer - and it isn't giving the terrorists seats in first class.
I disagree entirely -- I would rather risk serious personal injury or even death than compromise the freedoms and liberties this nation was founded on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hilariously wrong dichotomy you got there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm.
C'mon you lazy shills, get it gear! Where's the hordes of ignorant "the TSA makes me safe" claims resounding from the hills?
... laziness. I barely care that the shills are lying to my face, if only they could just be consistent and punctual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One in the Same
tyrannytalkdotcom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 extra questions
How many attacks on our liberties have been made by the TSA?
I fear the TSA more, because they are designed to infringe on our liberties, Al-Qaeda's intentions are more to strike fear rather than infringe.
Besides that, the chance of me getting hit by one of their attacks is sooo much lower than the chance of me being subjected to one of TSA's gropefests or nudescans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 extra questions
TSA has the force of law behind it.
There's your answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 extra questions
And, as American citizens, we SHOULD be able to change this, but we can't.
Remind yourself how much YOUR VOTE MATTERS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 extra questions
seriously, you're better off in a properly organised feudal system than the utter farce that is 'representative' democracy, especially when one lives in an empire the size of the USA. (the British empire was larger, but due to the limits of geography and tech, it's colonies were in many ways functionally more independant than US states... well, after the successful american revolt, anyway :P still, when something went wrong, it was usually possible to directly lay it at the feet of the individual responsible and have them replaced, minimum.)
at least then an Actual majority, properly employed, is irresistible. Aku Soku Zan and all that. something representative democracy prevents in the name of stability (NOT freedom.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 extra questions
All they do is try and strike fear.
And apparently they struck gold with our governments who would like us all to cower in fear of the terrorist boogeyman. Because a scared nation is easier to lead.
Well, I'm not convinced that Al-Qaeda poses much of a threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, what if you like the groping?
Joking aside, I kinda fear both equally. Al Qaeda not for their terrorist attacks but that every time they sneeze the TSA has to come out with some new way to make our lives hell. Gotta give props to AQ though, not many outside organizations can make our lives hell like AQ can and they aren't as powerful as they used to be. There are terrorist organizations that are far more deadly (ahem - Mexican drug cartels that are being ignored?) here in the US than AQ.
For cryin out loud, how many kidnappings you see in the US from AQ? Yet its happening in what feels like a monthly basis here in Florida and up in Georgia thanks to drug cartels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ackronyms?
Testies Search All!
OK creative juices depleted. Your ideas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ackronyms?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and even when something does go wrong..
TSA is worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is the math.
25,000 x 365 = 9,125,000 flights a year (in the US)
How many terrorist attacks have we had within the last 10 or so years? 4? 6?
6 in 91,250,000 odds, you have better odds of most state lottos (Power ball) then being the victim of a terrorist attack or hijacking while flying in America.
Are those odds enough to require we get molested or have low quality, cancer inducing porn images taken of us? I don't believe so, I wish others did as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here is the math.
In the 70s, there were tons of hijackings. Dozens a year. If nothing had changed, that number would have likely grown. Can you imagine a situation where there is a hijacking every week? by your own number, 50 hijacks a year, 500 every 10 years... 500 in 91,250,000 starts to look less enjoyable. That would be 1 in 182,500, which would be more than good enough odds for most people to buy a lottery ticket.
It is similar to car safety. Devices put in place in the last 40 years, combined with design changes, have made significant steps to reduce death by car. From seat belts to airbags, from crumple zones to changes in placement of fuel tanks, actions have been taken and safety improved. It would be misleading to say "see, fewer people are dying in cars, so we didn't need to make all those changes". It's the changes themselves that directly contribute to the safety.
If you ignore the effects of the TSA and other programs on airline safety, you can easily draw the wrong conclusions. Shut down the security checkpoints for a while, and let me know how much you enjoy your flights. You may want to bring your own handgun for cover.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here is the math.
Why would the TSA scare off a terrorist trying to bomb a train? Or a hospital? Or a government building?
You honestly think religious fanatics who want to give their own life for their cause are going to shrug their shoulders and say "Oops, security guard, guess I'll throw away my beliefs"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but remember all you obama fans... it is his policy that is allowing us to be groped and raped by the TSA... I'll remember that when I cast my ballot in 2012
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TSA
the Terrorist Society of America, at least.
at least they're not an industry association yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FAIL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FAIL
I feared the escape of my boiling temper more than anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I don't see any elephants!"
"See? That's how well it works."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA For The Win!
T S A!
T S A!
T S A!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fear of Flying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fear of Flying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Al Queda...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I fear the prescription using stoner driving a tractor trailer.
I fear the drug adict looking to rob someone for thier next fix.
I fear a lighting strike while hiking.
I fear getting bitten by a rattler while hiking in the desert.
I do not fear terrorists. My chances of dying at a terrorists hands are far less than all of the above combined.
I do not fear the TSA. For people who just follow orders, and tell you it is their job, with no reguards for consequences, and no compassion for other. We have a court just for them, the International Criminal Court.
Yeah, I know, I am guilty of an indirect Godwin's Law violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
just, ya know, putting that out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
US officials are immune from prosecution in the ICC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I am remembering correctly, all "acknowledged" heads of state are immune from prosecution. "Until such time as" ...
Most people do not realize that all actions have consequences even if you are ordered to do them. Shoot this man in the head he is a traitor. Grab this childs crotch, she may have explosives in her diaper.
I ask a question ... Why didn't you dig through the poop in the diaper if you thought it was an explosive? Yeah, I know you wanted to run off to the bathroom and flip off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]