Full body scans for US bound flights

[Cyrus]

So, who can show me some statistics on global aircraft hijackings? Apparently some people are convinced that only Middle Eastern people hijack airplanes, so I at least would like to see some raw data that proves that point.

But I don't care about global hijackings. I care about hijackings that concern the united states, there is no need to obfuscate the issue.

 

[chayced]

Full body scanners are not the best answer. Since all of the full body scanners I've heard of intentionally obfuscate the crotch or at least have a blurred view of the entire body, they may not have detected this last bomber. Even if you had a full view of the man, you are still limited to what seems abnormal.

Explosive sniffer portals are the better answer. They are less intrusive, and they detect explosive even when they don't look like explosives. You still have to deal with compounds they don't detect, or chemicals which are harmless on their own, but combine to form explosives. These problems however can be solved somewhat by adapting what they detect.

Do terrorists change their tactics to fit the security measures? Sure. Does this preclude things like racial/religious profiling? No. When 85 year old grandmothers start attacking airliners we can give them the whole body and cavity searches. Security has to adapt to be effective, but treating everyone the same in the short run is foolish. We always go back to timothy McVeigh, but you know what, after the OK city bombing anyone with ties to a gun club was looked upon as a potential terrorist nut by the media. Same thing with columbine, every high school student who wore a trench coat was suddenly going to shoot up the school. The reaction is natural, and somewhat justified, but suddenly when the terrorists are not white we decide to be politically correct? Kids can go to school in trench coats again today and people can be members of gun clubs without being called terrorists because the stereotypes didn't hold water.

As for the argument that terrorism is much less deadly than car crashes, there is one key difference: When I sit in my car and drive somewhere I chose to take that risk. The same is true with the risk of non terrorism airplane crashes. If someone put a bomb on the road and used it to blow up my car it would not be a risk that I intentionally took. The same is true of the outrage felt when a product is found to have a life threatening defect that the manufacturer ignored. We are not upset about inherent risk, we are upset about intentionally added risk.

 

[Monique]

But I don't care about global hijackings. I care about hijackings that concern the united states, there is no need to obfuscate the issue.

Does that mean you don't have any statistics to argument your position?

 

[mheslep]

Casualties from 'the troubles' 3500
Casualties from Muslim terrorists 52 (also not on planes)

True (for 7/7). 3500 in England or mostly in N. Ire? Obviously Jihadists would blow up a plane given any chance, but the IRA never did suicide bombings, nor have they given any indication they'd blow up a civilian airliner. Bottom line, it would be a waste of time to screen the Irish at the same rate as Middle Eastern travelers.

 

[Cyrus]

Does that mean you don't have any statistics to argument your position?

All right, the number of Hijackers in 911, so 19 for starters.

Now your turn.

 

[Monique]

All right, the number of Hijackers in 911, so 19 for starters.

Now your turn.

No, it is still your turn. Show me the statistics of the past 10 years. Or don't you have any statistics?

 

[chayced]

No, it is still your turn. Show me the statistics of the past 10 years. Wait, or don't you have any statistics?

In his defence, you apparently don't either.

 

[Monique]

In his defence, you apparently don't either.

He should come up with a statistic, since he is the one who is convinced that only a single group must be targeted for screening. Since Cyrus is someone who is familiar with aviation I would think he would be informed, but apparently he is not. Too bad.

 

[mheslep]

The United States still has to abide the laws put forth by the United Nations High Commissionar for Human Rights...

What US treaty commits the US to such? (laws must be the wrong word there - the High Commissionar can't not make law)

 

[mheslep]

Anyone who is willing can make a fake ID card...

Many posts in this thread have suggested we're not interested in the absolutes of everyone, we're interested in probabilities of most. The realities of limited resources are in play. So what is logically the best way to address most of the threat?

 

[drizzle]

In his defence, you apparently don't either.

you do not judge an individual based on group's actions, that's 1. Two, the accused is innocent until proven guilty [I’ll let you work out what’s it to this!]. Third and bottom line, every single person in this world deserved to be treated the same way as others. Otherwise, you should expect the terror if you’re following Mr. cool American’s advice based on his racist conclusions.

 

[Borek]

Muslim terrorist or US marine?

 

[chayced]

you do not judge an individual based on group's actions, that's 1. Two, the accused is innocent until proven guilty [I’ll let you work out what’s it to this!]. Third and bottom line, every single person in this world deserved to be treated the same way as others. Otherwise, you should expect the terror if you’re following Mr. cool American’s advice based on his racist conclusions.

First off, you are going directly against what you preach by saying "Mr. Cool American". You are judging an individual by a group, or I guess judging a group by an individual which is just as bad.

When did I ever propose to determine guilt by race? That's not what racial profiling is about. It's about focusing on likely groups of individuals to find the guilty parties. As I said, when the racial makeup changes then the profiling should follow suit.

No, not every person on this great world deserves to be treated the same. If that were true we should let murderers go free, and allow dictators to reign. People deserve to be treated according to their choices and not their skin color. If a group makes bad choices then we have every right to judge the group, and use that for profiling. That does not give us the right to judge the individual based solely on the group.

If half the red apples have worms in them and very few of the green apples do, which do you focus on knowing you do not have the resources to check every apple? That doesn't mean every red apple has a worm or every green apple is safe, it just means there is no way for us to catch every worm and we want to do the best we can with what we have.

 

[Monique]

Of course all disgruntled FedEx personnel should also be on the no-fly list.

42-year-old FedEx Express Flight Engineer Auburn Calloway, a former military pilot and a martial arts expert, faced termination of employment for lying on his résumé about his previous flying experience with the United States Navy. Calloway intended to murder the flight crew using blunt force in order to disguise the hijacking as an accident so that his family would benefit from his $2.5 million life insurance policy. To accomplish this he brought aboard two claw hammers, two sledge hammers and a speargun he concealed inside a guitar case.[1] Once the flight crew was eliminated he planned to use the aircraft for a kamikaze attack on FedEx Headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee. Just prior to the flight Calloway had transferred over $50,000 in securities and cashiers checks to his ex-wife.[1] He also carried a note aboard, written to her "describing the author's apparent despair".[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705

Emphasis mine.

 

[arildno]

you do not judge an individual based on group's actions, that's 1. Two, the accused is innocent until proven guilty [I’ll let you work out what’s it to this!]. Third and bottom line, every single person in this world deserved to be treated the same way as others. Otherwise, you should expect the terror if you’re following Mr. cool American’s advice based on his racist conclusions.

1. depends what you mean by judging. If it involves jailing, of course you shouldn't judge someone on basis of the groups overrepresentation. But it is perfectly acceptable, for example, to deny the brother of a drug addict security clearance in some cases, because the potential familial troubles might bring such a brother into dilemmas that you wish people with the highest security clearances should not get into.

2. Accused innocent before guilty. Bollocks. That principle is only valid as a cautionary measure prior to invoke state violence. It has not the slightest to do with invoking sensible, precautionary measures that does not amount to an act of state violence.

3. No, people are NOT to be treated as anynomous, exchangeable pieces of manflesh, but that individuating treatments remain fully in accord with a persons constitutional rights.
And being searched by airport personnel is fully in accord with such rights, and does NOT constitute a violation of them.

So, in short, wrong on ALL accounts on your part, due to muddled thinking.

 

[arildno]

No, it is still your turn. Show me the statistics of the past 10 years. Or don't you have any statistics?

Actually, Monique, private individuals have not the moral obligation to act as statistics bureaus.

Officially funded statistics bureaus DO have that obligation, and YOU should start asking yourself why these bureaus routinely REFUSE to publish any, and every data, that would see differential patterns of behaviour by criteria concerning religicocultural affinity.

It was perfectly common, previously, for example in the 19th century, to ALSO publish statistics of, say, crime, along confessional divides.
(Along with age divides, socioeconomic divides, backgroung education divides and so on, of course)

Why is such statistics now become the greatest TABOO for bureaus of statistics..

 

[arildno]

Upto the 9/11 events the number of planes in US airspace deliberately crashed by the crew (either suicide or homicide) was greater than the number crashed by hijackers.

So what!

By necessity, it will always be far more difficult to prevent the entry onto a plane a legitimate crew member than a random passenger. Not the least because crew members are precisely among those who are to supervise whether others are to enter their plane.

It is just silly to lump together the dangers posed by crew members and the dangers posed by passengers, for effective measures, they constitute totally independent groups, each requiting their own set of effective security measures.

 

[chayced]

Of course all disgruntled FedEx personnel should also be on the no-fly list.

Emphasis mine.

From Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Main Entry: ter·ror
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : worry d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat
3 : reign of terror
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

Since your example is not an act to incite terrror or to cause political change, it is not useable in the discussion. We are talking about people who are politicaly motivated by whatever reason.

 

[Monique]

And where does the state of intense fear come from? Maybe we/you should also be afraid of the lone gunmen.

 

[Vanadium 50]

No, it is still your turn. Show me the statistics of the past 10 years. Or don't you have any statistics?

I have a feeling that statistics won't make any difference, but this is what I was able to come up with. I count successful hijackings, and the number in parantheses is the number of hijackers.

Nationality of Airline Hijackers, 1999-2009

• Afghan 1 (9)
• Bolivian 1
• Filipino 1
• Jamaican 1
• Japanese 1
• Moroccan 1
• Pakistani 1 (5)
• Russian 2 (4)
• Saudi 4 (19)
• Sudanese 1
• Turkish 1

 

[mgb_phys]

It is just silly to lump together the dangers posed by crew members and the dangers posed by passengers, for effective measures, they constitute totally independent groups, each requiting their own set of effective security measures.

The important point is not to base your security on what happened last time
That was the whole problem.
Hijackers in the past didn't hurt anybody, they were either paid or flew to Cuba.
So policy was don't resist. That allowed a bunch of hijackers to fly planes into buildings.

So deciding that hijackers are all middle eastern men, and only security checking them is going to have the same effect. They are going to get a white looking guy to smuggle the next bomb.
Then you add the specific details of that guy to the list ... and so on.

Do you think El-Al security look down the line of passengers and don't bother to search anybody with a yamulke ?

 

[chayced]

From Wikipedia
2000 October 13, Firebombing of Temple Beth El (Syracuse) :Islamic Terrorists

2000: 2000 New York terror attack Three young men of Arab descent hurled crude Molotov cocktails at a synagogue in The Bronx,New York to "strike a blow in the Middle East conflict between Israel and Palestine".[24] Islamic Terrorists

2001 May 21 The Center for Urban Horticulture at the University of Washington burned. Replacement building cost $7,000,000. Earth Liberation Front members pleads guilty.[29][30]
ELF
2001 September 11: September 11, 2001 attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda. The attacks were carried out by Islamic fundamentalists using hijacked commercial airplanes to damage the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and The Pentagon. Building 7 of the World Trade Center was also destroyed but was not hit with a plane. A fourth plane crashed prematurely in Pennsylvania. Investigations have been conducted. Some critics however maintain that a thorough enough investigation has not been carried out. Islamic Terrorists.
2001 September 18: November - 2001 anthrax attacks. Letters tainted with anthrax kill five across the United States, with politicians and media officials as the apparent targets. On July 31, 2008 Bruce E. Ivins a top biodefense researcher committed suicide.[31] On August 6, 2008 the FBI concluded that Ivins was solely responsible for the attacks and suggested that Ivins wanted to bolster support for a vaccine he helped create and that he targeted two lawmakers because they were Catholics who held pro choice views.[32] Crazy Guy?
May 2002 Mailbox Pipe Bomber: Lucas John Helder rigged pipe bombs in private mailboxes to explode when the boxes were opened. He injured 6 people in Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and Iowa. His motivation was to garner media attention so that he could spread a message denouncing government control over daily lives and the illegality of marijuana as well as promoting astral projection. Crazy Guy
2002 July 4: 2002 Los Angeles Airport shooting Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a 41-year-old Egyptian national, kills two Israelis and wounds four others at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. The FBI concluded this was terrorism, although they found no evidence linking Hadayet to any terrorist group.[33] Islamic Terrorist
October 2002 Beltway Sniper Attacks: During three weeks in October 2002 John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed 10 people and critically injured three others in Washington D.C, Baltimore, and Virginia. An earlier spree by the pair had resulted in 3 deaths in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, California, Arizona, and Texas to bring the total to 16 deaths. No motivation was given at the trial but evidence presented showed an affinity to the cause of the Islamic jihad. Islamic Terrorist
2006 March 5: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar injured 6 when he drove an SUV into a group of pedestrians at UNC-Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world".[34] Islamic Terrorist
2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting, Egyptian shoots six Jewish women Islamic Terrorist
2007 October 26: A pair of improvised explosive devices were thrown at the Mexican Consulate in New York City. The fake grenades were filled with black powder and detonated by fuses causing very minor damage. Police were investigating the connection between this and a similar attack against the British Consulate in New York in 2005.[35] ?
2008 February: In the first reported incident of animal-rights extremists physically assaulting the family members of animal researchers, six masked activists attempted to force their way into the home of a University of California, Santa Cruz, researcher and injured the researcher's husband.[36][37] Animal Rights
2008 March 3: Four multimillion-dollar show homes place in Woodinville, Washington are torched. The Earth Liberation Front is suspected in the fires.[38] ELF
2008 May 4 Multiple nail laden pipe bombs exploded at a Federal Courthouse in San Diego at 1:40 AM causing "considerable damage" to the entrance and lobby and sending shrapnel two blocks away. The F.B.I. is investigating links between this attack and an April 25 explosion at the FedEx building also in San Diego.[39][40] ?
2008 July 27 Jim D. Adkisson opened fire in the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville,Tennessee killing two and injuring seven before being tackled to the ground by congregation members. A note found in his SUV indicated this was intended as a suicide attack and said the church was apparently targeted because of its support of liberal social policies.[41] Crazy Conservative
2008 August 2, August 3 University of California-Santa Cruz molecular biologist David Feldheim's home was firebombed. A car belonging to another researcher from that University was destroyed by a firebomb in what is presumed to be related. FBI is investigating incidents as domestic terrorism related to animal rights groups.[42][43] Animal Rights
2008 Summer and Fall: White House computer email archives attacked several times. Chinese intelligence suspected.[44] Not Terrorism.
2009 April 8: According to a report in the Wall Street Journal intruders have left malware in power grids, water and sewage systems that could be activated at a later date. While the attacks which have occurred over a period of time seem to have originated in China and Russia it is unknown if they are state sponsored.[45] ?
2009 May 31: Assassination of George Tiller. Dr. George Tiller, a doctor who provided late term abortions was shot to death in a Wichita, Kansas church. Tiller was shot previously in 1993 and his abortion clinic had been bombed in 1985. Alleged assassin Scott Roeder, who believes in justifiable homicide of abortion providers, has been arrested for the killing.[46][47] Anti Abortion
2009 May 25: Crude bomb explodes in a Starbucks in Manhattan's Upper East Side. On July 14 Kyle Shaw age 17 is arrested and pleaded not guilty. He is being held pending $300,000 bond or $100,000 cash bail. Police allege his motive was to emulate "Project Mayhem" a series of assaults on cooperate America portrayed in the movie Fight Club.[48] Crazy Guy
2009 June 1: Arkansas recruiting office shooting One military recruiter was killed and another critically injured by gunshot at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army/Navy Career Center. The suspect Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad said he was upset over U.S. killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.[49] Islamic Terrorist
2009 June 10: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting. A gunman identified as 88 year old James Wenneker von Brunn walked into the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C. and shot a guard who later died. Wenneker von Brunn was critically wounded when security guards immediately returned fire but is expected to live.[50] Wennecker von Brunn has been described as a white supremacist and a neo-Nazi.[51] White Supremacist
2009 July 4: A denial of service attack of unusual length and sophistication affected United States and South Korean government websites as well as websites for the Washington Post and NASDAQ. Websites for several U.S. government agencies were shut down for up to 3 days. A sophisticated organization or nation was suspected according to the National Intelligence Service.[52] ?

So, a rough total:
8 Islamic Terrorist acts.
2 ELF
2 Animal Rights
2 Crazy Guys
1 Crazy Conservative
1 Anti Abortion
1 White Supremacist
4 Unknown
This is not a complete list, but it's pretty clear from this that the largest group is made of Islamic terrorists. Then if you lump ELF and Animal rights you have the second largest group. Then lumping crazy conservatives and anti abortion (even though these were perpatrated by single individuals, not members of a movement) you get the third largest group. Then plain crazy people. Then the lone White Supremacist. Then 4 unknown.
So, back to the apples. If red apples have a much higher chance of having a worm, which do you inspect?

 

[mheslep]

Muslim terrorist or US marine?

With thousands of people per day moving through an airport, spend time and money to scan this one:

or this one:
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/683887-Grandmother-Hungary.jpg

 

[cristo]

Muslim terrorist or US marine?

Both

With thousands of people per day moving through an airport, spend time and money to scan this one:

or this one:
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/683887-Grandmother-Hungary.jpg

The old lady, definitely. There's something about that smile that just doesn't fit.

 

[mheslep]

The old lady, definitely. There's something about that smile that just doesn't fit.

That's actually a photo of Borek; his posting photo is the one he uses when attempting to board airplanes.

 

[drizzle]

The old lady, definitely. There's something about that smile that just doesn't fit.

 

[qsa]

from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling

It has also been pointed out that many Arabs and South Asians resemble South (and occasionally even North) Europeans. On the other hand, confusion with Latin Americans and Caribbean people with Arabs is very common at airports. The constitutional basis for racial profiling has been a point of considerable discussion. The fact remains that racial profiling is also targeted against Europeans and others with similar ethnic features when abroad, as the practice is common throughout the world.





In the United States, the government does not have the right to conduct searches based solely on racial profiling. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. Since the majority of people of all races are law-abiding citizens, merely being of a race which a police officer believes to be more likely to commit a crime than another is not probable cause. In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law. It has been argued that this makes it unconstitutional for a representative of the government to make decisions based on race. This view has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky and several other cases.

 

[chayced]

And where does the state of intense fear come from? Maybe we/you should also be afraid of the lone gunmen.

That's just it, a lone gunman is a fact of life. Crazy people happen. A person who is the member of a violent movement that turns to violence is not a lone gunman, they are the pawn of something bigger than themselves. Do you honestly think that all terrorists would have committed their terrorist acts without being involved in a group that supports their actions? Without people that praise their actions?
Are the members of ELF people that were blowing up things before they met, or did they form a sick group think that brainwashes people into thinking that the ends justify the means?

The problem is that we cannot fight the source of these terrorist actions, we can simply fight the actions themselves.

Back to the OP: Unless body scans can do internal scans, I think we should work on better explosive sniffers.

 

[Borek]

Both

Actually - neither. But his first name is Ibrahim and he just killed several people including himself.

 

[rootX]

The problem is that we cannot fight the source of these terrorist actions, we can simply fight the actions themselves.

Yes it is possible to fight the source but one method I can think of doesn't involve guns/bombs.

 

[qsa]

Yes it is possible to fight the source but one method I can think of doesn't involve guns/bombs.

I thought Ossama and company were trained by US and they were brothers in arm againt former soviet union. Something went wrong, if you solve that may be you will have an end to this situation.

 

[chayced]

Yes it is possible to fight the source but one method I can think of doesn't involve guns/bombs.

Well, do enlighten me, because last I heard trying to reason with an unreasonable person was foolish. If we can somehow either prove to the people they recruit that their cause is unjust, or THAT THEY CANNOT ACOMPLISH THEIR OBJECTIVES AND ONLY FIGHT IN VAIN, then we can keep this form of terrorism down to a minimum. However the former is not politically correct, and the latter involves making terrorism nearly impossible which is what this thread is about.

I thought Ossama and company were trained by US and they were brothers in arm againt former soviet union. Something went wrong, if you solve that may be you will have an end to this situation.

They were terrorists then. We knew it, but at the time it seemed like the enemy of our enemy was our friend. Nothing to solve. They wanted what we had at the time and were willing to play nice to get it.

 

[qsa]

They were terrorists then. We knew it, but at the time it seemed like the enemy of our enemy was our friend. Nothing to solve. They wanted what we had at the time and were willing to play nice to get it.

So teaming with terrorists and drug trafficers for national cause means playing dirty just like the terrorists. But I think the US as a supper power should always conduct itself in the highest moral way, which will be good for all in the long run. Otherwise, all other nations (and groups) will immitate, bringing humanity to such a low state with grave consequences. But I am affraid that the words of plato to alexander''s father phillip are still true.

You shall rule the world with bribary, treachery and force of arms.

 

[Cyrus]

So teaming with terrorists and drug trafficers for national cause means playing dirty just like the terrorists. But I think the US as a supper power should always conduct itself in the highest moral way, which will be good for all in the long run. Otherwise, all other nations (and groups) will immitate, bringing humanity to such a low state with grave consequences. But I am affraid that the words of plato to alexander''s father phillip are still true.

You shall rule the world with bribary, treachery and force of arms.

Man, if you really believe this you don't know politics. I want to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

 

[rootX]

Well, do enlighten me, because last I heard trying to reason with an unreasonable person was foolish. If we can somehow either prove to the people they recruit that their cause is unjust, or THAT THEY CANNOT ACOMPLISH THEIR OBJECTIVES AND ONLY FIGHT IN VAIN, then we can keep this form of terrorism down to a minimum. However the former is not politically correct, and the latter involves making terrorism nearly impossible which is what this thread is about.

There is not much that can be done other than
- improving the Western image among Middle east population
- subduing the terrorists through force
- increasing the defenses
at the same time, in parallel.

I believe #1 (Middle east culture and religion) is the source.

 

[mheslep]

I thought Ossama and company were trained by US and they were brothers in arm againt former soviet union. ...

With the exception of one or two individuals, no they were not.

 

[Monique]

Man, if you really believe this you don't know politics. I want to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

And you probably also think that there was nothing wrong with Guantanamo Bay? I probably don't even want to know the answer.

 

[drankin]

And you probably also think that there was nothing wrong with Guantanamo Bay? I probably don't even want to know the answer.

Different topic but what's wrong with Guantanamo?

 

[arildno]

The important point is not to base your security on what happened last time

Nonsense. It is precisely that you should do, along with active monitoring for new developments.

That was the whole problem.

No, it is not a problem at all.

Hijackers in the past didn't hurt anybody, they were either paid or flew to Cuba.

Tell that to the victims of the multiple hijackings from members of the PLO during the 70's.

So policy was don't resist. That allowed a bunch of hijackers to fly planes into buildings.

No. That policy was forced upon western countries by marxist traitors in their midst who made, and make, a sentimentalist show of how oppressed the hijackers are.

So deciding that hijackers are all middle eastern men, and only security checking them is going to have the same effect. They are going to get a white looking guy to smuggle the next bomb.
Then you add the specific details of that guy to the list ... and so on.

Correct. It is called an arms race. For each step, the costs for prospective terrorists to become effective will increase, until they enter the "diminishing-returns"-zone.
Then, their activities as such will be discouraged.

 

[arildno]

And where does the state of intense fear come from? Maybe we/you should also be afraid of the lone gunmen.

Since none of them belongs to an intercommunicating culture of hatred and violence, they operate beneath any sensible "radar screen" we can set up.

Therefore, it is pointless to bother about them, until the identifiable traits of such individuals can be detected reliably, in a cost-effective way.

This is no argument whatsoever against monitoring
a) those actively engaged in hate-generating sub-cultures (for example, readers/contributors at jihadist websites, members of the local KKK club, academics with a zeal for marxist revolutions and so on)

b) wider cultures where sub-cultures of type a) is greatly over-represented.

 

[Monique]

I think it will be a big mistake to only suspect people with a certain outward appearance or with a certain nationality. No matter what you say, I'm pretty sure that the US intelligence services will be aware of that as well.

Different topic but what's wrong with Guantanamo?

It appears to me that Cyrus is not concerned with human rights, when it comes to national security. That's why I was wondering about his opinion about Gitmo.

I think the following marine officer Brig. Gen. Michael Lehnert has conveyed the message well:

"I think we lost the moral high ground," Lehnert said. "For those who do not think much of the moral high ground, that is not that significant.

"But for those who think our standing in the international community is important, we need to stand for American values. You have to walk the walk, talk the talk."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-marine-gitmo25-2009sep25,0,1946707.story"

http://www.amnestyusa.org/counter-terror-with-justice/guantanamo-bay---a-human-rights-scandal/page.do?id=1108202"

 

[Borek]

I have a feeling that both Monique and me are treated as people who are against screening, while it is quite the opposite - we think that everyone should be screened.

Practicalities, cost-effectivenes are different things that make this idea impossible at this stage, but they don't matter at the very general level, they become important when we talk about implementations.

 

[lisab]

I haven't read every post in this thread, so sorry if this has already been mentioned.

The problem with any sort of profiling is that it's very simple for terrorists to figure out what profile is being scrutinized. They will adjust, and before you know it we'll have blonde hair, blue eyed women being recruited for suicide bombing missions.

The best way IMO to fight this is with feet-on-the-ground intelligence. We should have seen this underwear bomber coming months in advance (the clues were there, including http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8435266.stm" who was thwarted at Mogadishu, of all places).

Only with intelligence can we get out ahead of them. We need better methods to mine the data, of course, to sort out the signals from the noise.

That said, airport screening should continue, but with the knowledge that those systems are tooled to look for MOs that are already known to authorities.

 

[Galteeth]

Man, if you really believe this you don't know politics. I want to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

Practically speaking, such "realpolitik" actions do in fact have long term negative consequences besides the moral issues. The CIA refers to this as "blowback." Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA agent, wrote a book on this subject. It could be argued, with merit, that the taliban and Al-Qaeda are US created monsters.

EDIT: Saddam Hussein and the Iranian government as well.

 

[Newai]

But I don't care about global hijackings. I care about hijackings that concern the united states, there is no need to obfuscate the issue.

I thought all hijackings concern the United States, and every country the plane can possibly reach.

 

[Newai]

If they choose that option as a majority solution, it simply proves they were morally degenerate to begin with, and even more severe measures against them are justified, and should have been enforced from the start.
The reason for that is, of course, because that option is an IMMORAL choice.

They should instead choose the option of ridding their own sub-communities of those with terrorist leaning, i.e, "ratting on", for example, ideological leaders preaching unwarranted hatred against non-members, rather than the wall of silence which is this sub-populations preferred choice to evil committed, and celebrated within their ranks.


To avoid to implement an extremely effective scan measure merely out of the justified fear that some immorals will become unjustifiedly enflamed by it and resort to violence is to make the immoral choice of submitting to the cruel, wilful master as a slave, and require that others do so as well.

The differences in opinion following since this post are summed up with prevention versus reaction. It makes sense to me that in the theory of security, we do not focus on the individual but rather the holes those individuals sneak through. Gleaning over the current efforts, it looks like an attempted balance on both prevention and reaction.

I don't see much accomplishment in the arguments in this thread for prevention when digging through history, but the effort for prevention looks to be based on that theory. Of course, the can of worms appears to be inherent in arguing between perceived security and real security. Anyway...

I do not understand how your solution is realistic. Yes, their community has a burden of ratting out their own, but this is assuming they are in that capacity, which I doubt is often present. Instead, what I see, and I bet many others here can share, is a completely different way anyone of Middle Eastern descent feels just walking around in public now. The now new alien among us is a bitter and fearing stranger.

But you didn't answer my question. So with this in mind, can you assure me that focusing security on this group will not increase tensions, and inadvertently create more terrorism? Because from where I stand at least, I'm willing to put up with the extremely painful extra three hours in line if that means less possibility of terrorism.

 

[arildno]

But you didn't answer my question. So with this in mind, can you assure me that focusing security on this group will not increase tensions, and inadvertently create more terrorism?

It is an irrelevant concern.
Even if there is a tenfold, or thousandfold, temporary increase in terrorism due to that morally degenerate individuals throw a totally unjustified bleat about how they are "unfairly" treated, that is not sufficient reason to spare them that treatment.

Such terrified withholding is simply to subject oneself, and others, into a state of pitiable slavery before the cruel master.

And THAT is a deeply immoral choice of action.

 

[Borek]

temporary increase

I think that's where you are mistaken.

 

[ranger]

It is an irrelevant concern.
Even if there is a tenfold, or thousandfold, temporary increase in terrorism due to that morally degenerate individuals throw a totally unjustified bleat about how they are "unfairly" treated, that is not sufficient reason to spare them that treatment.

Such terrified withholding is simply to subject oneself, and others, into a state of pitiable slavery before the cruel master.

And THAT is a deeply immoral choice of action.

Are Muslims, and those in resemblance to the westernized stereotype, now morally degenerate? And it *is* justified for any group to throw a bleat for unfair treatment, even at the expense of your false sense of security. Furthermore, luckily, security officials can't be that naive because surely the increase will be long term. Not from the 'morally degenerate' group, but from the other groups placed on the pedestal, because face it, tactics can be changed easily.

 

[dotman]

This is no argument whatsoever against monitoring
a) those actively engaged in hate-generating sub-cultures (for example, readers/contributors at jihadist websites, members of the local KKK club, academics with a zeal for marxist revolutions and so on)

b) wider cultures where sub-cultures of type a) is greatly over-represented.

There is an argument against monitoring group (b), and it is exactly what you had stated:

Therefore, it is pointless to bother about them, until the identifiable traits of such individuals can be detected reliably, in a cost-effective way.

With regards to profiling supposed terrorists in this thread, it's not nearly as easy as it seems. Profile everyone of Arab descent? Most American Arabs are Christian, not Muslim. Profile Muslims? 88% of Muslims world-wide are not Arab at all.

Ethnic profiling on its own has serious constitutional liabilities with concern to the 14th and the 1st amendments. That notwithstanding, the practical problem with ethnic profiling is it flat out does not work in terms of either reliability or cost-effectiveness.