1
   

STUPID AIRPORT SECURITY

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Apr, 2005 11:28 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The list includes attacks on Americans and/or American installations by organized foreign terrorist groups and not American nutcases ebrown. Let's please focus on airport security for now.


Recently a Dutch airplane, which only wanted to pass a bit of US territory in an altitude of 36.000 feet on its way from the Netherlands to South America had to return to Amsterdam, because two 'suspects' were passengers. (These aren't on any European list, btw.)

So, I think, since the US-authorities do their checking re foreigners already in advance [only because I made an examination - in Germany, at a German university] which is origianally US, I had to allow that all my data and my photo were transmitted to US security agencies!], security at airports is just a domestic thing.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Apr, 2005 11:54 pm
They couldn't go around? That is interesting though Walter. Of course the U.S. security 'lists' are becoming infamous for the vast numbers of 'suspects' with apparently more being added every day. And of course there are intermittant errors and cases of mistaken or confused identifies etc.--Walter Williams cited one of those in the thread starter--all of which should clue us in that there is much more going on in the security front than what we read in the papers.

But consider this scenario--it didn't originate with me and it is purely a hypothetical illustration:

Suppose you're at the airport and you note a half dozen or so middle eastern looking guys at intervals in the line going through security. In the waiting area some of these guys sort of hang together or cast knowing glances at each other and they seem nervous. Would you tell a security officer?

If you were a security officer and observed this, would you check these guys out again? Why or why not?

How much are we willing to risk death and injury purely to protect people's sensitivities? On the other hand I don't want the extra scrutiny as I and nobody I know has any background suggesting we could be a danger to anybody.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 01:00 am
Foxfyre wrote:
They couldn't go around? That is interesting though Walter.


Quote:

Posted 4/21/2005 11:00 PM Updated 4/22/2005
Foreign flyover policy scrutinized
Source

Quote:
Danger - Saudi on board!
Insight 16 April 2005
with Rob Greene

Thank god the world's a safer place today than it was on 9/11. I'm telling you: if I had been one of the 278 passengers on board that KLM Boeing bound for Mexico City I would not have grumbled at all at hearing from the captain that we were heading back to Amsterdam because the US wouldn't allow us into their airspace. No, I would have applauded the Mexican authorities for discovering, after checking the passenger list, that I was sharing an aircraft with two decidedly dodgy characters from Saudi Arabia. I would commend the Canadians for not allowing us to land and I would -need I say this- raise my glass to those prudent Americans. You never know what two highly suspect Arabs in a KLM plane can get up to.

Does the name Mustafa al-Harimi mean anything to you? No? Well, I'm not surprised because I just made it up. Funny thing is, though, that there might well be any number of Arab gentlemen with precisely that name. Anything that sounds Arab usually is; there could well be page after page of al-Harimis in the Djeddah phone directory. For that's how it is with names. Do a Google search on "Robert Greene" and see how many of my namesakes pop up in the 3 million-plus results, from Robert Greene the late Elizabethan dramatist to Robert Greene the author of The Art Of Seduction (how I wish that was me!). I'm especially anxious to meet Robert Greene the New York-based Public Certified Accountant, for advice on how I can start my own business and hire my wife so I can get a hefty tax concession. My wife Elaine herself is frequently mistaken for the current President of the Texas Tumor Registrars Association, who happens to bear the same name.

What I'm trying to say - and I admit I'm taking my time doing it - is this: how many Saudi citizens share their name with the two dodgy characters on board the KLM plane? To use my invented name again: how did the Mexicans know they were dealing with al-Harimi the Al Qaeda convert and explosives expert, instead of al-Harimi the halva merchant from Medina? When it comes to that: how likely is it that a would-be terrorist would check in at Amsterdam Schiphol under his own name, claiming to be taking a break from combat training in Afghanistan for a bit of sightseeing in Mexico City? And, if he did indeed have evil plans, why depart from Schiphol, where not even a wooden toothpick will pass through security unnoticed?

Other questions pop up: have the Americans gone soft or something? Somehow I'd expected that, on receiving the warning from the Mexicans, they would have scrambled a squadron of F-16's, forced the Boeing to land in the Arizona Desert, dragged out the two Saudis and bundled them off to Guantanamo Bay for some stern questioning and subsequent reprogramming. But just saying: 'Ooohhh we don't want you here, go away'….it doesn't seem the American thing to do. And another thing: it's good to know that the Mexican authorities have a checklist of suspect individuals, but shouldn't the Dutch have one too? And if they do have one, why not use it? An ounce of prevention and all that: a lot of money and inconvenience could have been saved if the two Saudis had never got on board the plane in the first place.

To me the whole episode looks like two things: entirely futile, and a total shambles. Strangely, this is not the view of US Customs and Border Protection spokesperson Christiana Halsey, quoted in a recent Dutch newspaper as saying that the events had been evidence of the 'good communication' between Mexico, US officials and KLM. 'Things happened exactly as they should happen in situations like this' was her message to the rest of us, 'of course it caused the passengers who had to return to Schiphol enormous inconvenience, but the communication lines were short, action was taken immediately and that is great.' Well. Obviously, two Arabs on a plane will from now on amount to 'a situation like this'…..

If I were a clean living, law-abiding Saudi (or Algerian, Tunisian, Moroccan, Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian or Afghan) I'd be bloody angry at not being allowed to overfly the United States in the course of my legitimate business, merely because I share my name with someone on a list. If, on the other hand, I were a naughty Saudi (or Algerian etc.) I'd get quite a kick out of booking a transatlantic flight and then sitting back and enjoying the mayhem and confusion I caused. I think we can expect more of this.
Source
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 04:58 am
Wouldn't the dark eyed foreign looking terrorist just hire the innocent looking little old lady sympathizers to do their dirty after a while of being singled out?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 07:17 am
Quote:

US sends BA jet back to Britain

The BA jet was carrying 239 passengers when it turned back
A British Airways jumbo jet flying to New York turned back after the US objected to one of its passengers.

Three hours after take-off on Wednesday the Boeing 747, with 239 passengers, turned around after a US request that the man should not be allowed to land.

They said his name matched one on a terrorism watch list. He was met by British police on landing and was questioned, but later released.

BA said there was "no threat to the safety of the aircraft".

BA flight 175 landed back at Heathrow at 1730 GMT - more than six hours after take-off.

Homeland security made the match by checking data transmitted after the flight departed from London
US Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman
A spokeswoman said BA took the decision to return to Heathrow Airport, west London.

She added: "The remaining passengers will depart for JFK [airport] at 2000 GMT this evening."

A spokeswoman from the US Transportation Security Administration said: "There was a person travelling on a French passport who was a positive match with an anti-terrorism watch list.

"Homeland security made the match by checking data transmitted after the flight departed from London."

In September, Yusuf Islam, the British singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, was shocked when his plane to Washington was diverted on national security grounds.

He believes a spelling error by the FBI was the reason he ended up on a "no fly" list and asked his lawyers to look into it.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said his case would be reviewed.


source
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 07:44 am
revel writes
Quote:
Wouldn't the dark eyed foreign looking terrorist just hire the innocent looking little old lady sympathizers to do their dirty after a while of being singled out?


They could, but in all these years they never have. Are you applying for the job? No? I'm not applying for the job. How many little old lady sympathizers do you think are out there?

And as for the U.S. 'flyover' policy, I am not familiar enough with what the criteria actually is to make any kind of informed comment. I guess my feeling is that if we err, we should err on the side of caution.

But the whole point I think is not going all the way to utterly ridiculous. Nobody has yet dealt with the question of why a ballpoint pen is allowed but tweezers are not. Canadian security is apparently just as tough though. My last trip through Vancouver, I had a pair of cuticle scissors confiscated.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 08:34 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Canadian security is apparently just as tough though. My last trip through Vancouver, I had a pair of cuticle scissors confiscated.


I doubt, you'll one single European where such would be allowed - three years ago, our plane at the local airport was late because some "kind-of-English-speaking-non-Europeans" couldn't believe this. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 08:40 am
But can you imagine being seriously intimidated by a terrorist wielding tweezers or cuticle scissors?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 08:42 am
I wouldn't like to be a steward with cuticle scissors on the throat.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 08:45 am
Or a ballpoint pen against the jugular?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 09:43 am
I am just saying that these terrorist seem resourceful and patient and they will find ways around something so simple as being singled out based soley on their looks or name. Maybe they would hire out people who are American but have radical muslim sympathies and can blend in well with a crowd. It's not a difficult point.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 09:54 am
You can rationalize almost anything and kill or sidetrack almost any concept or idea if you throw in enough 'what if's'.

The point is, they don't closely scrutinize everybody, and there is one group, and only one group, who are notorious for planning and carrying out terrorist attacks. I think it quite imprudent to refuse to do any profiling whatsoever, and spend precious time scanning Granny's airport provided wheelchair while allowing a bevy of Middle Eastern looking guys stroll right through security with minimal scrutiny. Use normal security procedures on minimal risk candidates; use higher security procedures on higher risk candidates.

I can't see where that is an unreasonable suggestion.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 11:54 am
Well, here gets everybody the same security procedure, at least with luggage and the personal scanning. Sometimes, the one and the other ID-cards/paaports are controlled more intensively (in nine out of ten times it's mine).
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 01:36 pm
foxfire wrote : " Middle Eastern looking guys ".

from my knowledge of the united states it seems that there are many "Middle Eastern looking guys " that were born in the united states and are solid u.s. citizens. i don't think profiling 'by looks' is a very effective way of recognizing possible terror suspects. unless a country wants to turn itself into a fortress, i doubt that it is possible to keep 'undesirables' of any kind out completely.

i think what happened 9/11 was terrible and unfortunate, but it was also an occurrence that is likeley not going to happen again. i doubt that terrorists would apply to receive flight-training in the u.s. - but ... looking back, it is hard to understand that any u.s. business(namely the florida flying school) would offer flight-training to people that must have been mighty suspicious - not because of their looks but because of the kind of training they were looking for. hbg

and here is a p.s. : i read in 'business week' magazine recently, that many business leaders and scientists fear that restricting immigration and student visas, will have damaging and long lasting effects upon the u.s. economy. the article stated that the u.s. economy depends on these people to come to the u.s. because they are the future scientists and business leaders that are needed to help the u.s. to maintain its leading role in the world.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 01:44 pm
Well that is something different to think about hbg. But if terrorists aren't likely to appropriate airplanes again--there were quite a few airplane incidents on that list I posted earlier today however--then why do we need extra airport security at all? Or as somebody suggested earlier, it doesn't accomplish a thing and only serves to make the passengers feel better?

Student visas and immigration policy would be separate issues from airport security I think.

I have already acknowledged that most of the Middle Eastern looking guys in the United States are honest, hard working, quite non-dangerous people.

That does not change the fact that almost all international terrorists these days are Middle Eastern looking guys.

For those of us who would not like to share a flight with a terrorist bent on creating mayhem and murder, I still don't see why it would hurt to direct the resources for extra scrutiny to the group that most likely might harbor a terrorist and use the more normal and much quicker methods of scrutiny for the rest of us.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 01:53 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
That does not change the fact that almost all international terrorists these days are Middle Eastern looking guys.

Two notes here:

1. Airport security is not designed solely to prevent international terrorism.
2. Aren't the Russians having difficulty with female bombers on airplanes? And they are Caucasian, if I recall correctly.


Fox, applying security to a select group is bad security.

As mentioned before, once you know what the screening criteria are, then you can adjust your papers and/or appearance to avoid the screening. Do you honestly believe that a "middle-eastern appearing" terrorist is incapable of bleaching his skin and wearing tinted contacts?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 01:55 pm
What I don't understand is, why do you object security meassurements as they are done elsewhere in the world ('should be done', I admit) to ALL and EVERYONE in the USA as well?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 01:56 pm
Then we would have to hope that normal security caught them wouldn't we Drewdad? Just like we do now. And meanwhile little old ladies are reduced to tears trying to get through security.

It's nuts.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 02:06 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Then we would have to hope that normal security caught them wouldn't we Drewdad? Just like we do now. And meanwhile little old ladies are reduced to tears trying to get through security.

1. Define "normal security." You have, IMO, advocated security measures that would significantly reduce the safety of airplanes.

2. I think the current security methods are complete BS, anyway. I just don't agree that profiling is the answer.



IMO, the best step that has been taken to improve airline security is securing the cockpit. If you can't get to the controls, then you can't fly it into a building.

The second thing that has changed is the attitude of the passengers. Passengers will never again sit idly by and allow someone other than the pilot to take control of an airplane. (This is actually a change in doctrine not a change in security.)

The next best security step would be to positively identify passengers with their checked baggage. Currently, a passenger can depart the aircraft at a layover and the checked baggage remain on the plane. This is what happened over Lockerby (spelling?), Scotland.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Apr, 2005 02:08 pm
Everybody is subjected to airport security here Walter--it's tougher at some airports than others. We all have to submit photo ID, make it through a metal detector, have our carry on luggage, coats, shoes, etc. x-rayed, etc. I don't know anybody who objects to this 'normal' security. The only question here is how the rules and regulations so often don't make sense and then there is the issue of who gets tagged for extra scrutiny which can get pretty personal.

It just seems to make sense that you give most of the extra scrutiny to those who are most likely to be a member of a terrorist group.

And now we are all wondeing what it is about Walter that makes him look so suspicious. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/15/2024 at 04:02:58