Full body scans for US bound flights

[Cyrus]

Why for what? for being pathetic or to be treated equally as others?

Being treated equally is this biggest load of nonsense someone can say. Let me spell this out for you: no one is treated equal. The laws that apply to me, a US citizen, DO NOT apply to you a foreign national. You WILL NOT be treated equally when coming to my country, nor I to yours. If you are visiting my country from the middle east, I want you and your bags searched. You don't like it, don't visit. Not having airplanes blow up is more important than your feelings of misgivings for being searched at the airport.

 

[Monique]

The United States still has to abide the laws put forth by the United Nations High Commissionar for Human Rights. It it not right to be treated as a terrorist based on some general characteristic, the same as it is not right to be treated as a drug trafficker based on an incident.

 

[Cyrus]

The United States still has to abide the laws put forth by the United Nations High Commissionar for Human Rights. It it not right to be treated as a terrorist based on some general characteristic, the same as it is not right to be treated as a drug trafficker based on an incident. I sympathize with arildno's point of view, he actually seems to have given the issue some thought.

There is no right to 'equal airport screening'.

 

[arildno]

The United States still has to abide the laws put forth by the United Nations High Commissionar for Human Rights. It it not right to be treated as a terrorist based on some general characteristic,

Complete nonsense.

It is eminently rational, for example, to deny homosexual men to be blood donors due to extreme over-representation of HIV positives within that group. (Being gay myself and not engaging in high-risk behaviour in that department, I still have not the slightest resentment against that policy)

To gain sufficiently detailed information about any arbitrary group so as to expect minimal variance WITHIN that group (i.e, that the group can be regarded as homogenous in a salient aspect) is an extremely COSTLY procedure.

That is why it is more rational to single out some general, (fairly) readily identifiable characteristics, that are strongly associated with "high risk" (i.e, grossly over-represented), and take important decisions based upon that.

We always have limited resources available, and must put them to use most efficiently.
And such efficiency is NOT gained by fussing about variance-minimizing information gathering, because it is..too costly.

 

[arildno]

Didn't you have an incident very recently where a mass murder took place inside an army base?

That merely shows that Muslims should be more thoroughly screened relative to others before being allowed to serve in the Army.

 

[arildno]

http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php?index=article&articleid=14021"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirsad_Bektašević

And as said, non-muslim white people also perform terrorist attacks: Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols, Theodore Kaczynski, Eric Robert Rudolph, Samuel Bowers, Michael Bray, Richard Grint Butler, Robert Edward Chambliss, David Lane.

Or have you been brainwashed to think that the only people who are capable of doing bad things are black Muslims?

Sure.

If you extend your list of prime suspects to also include committed Marxists and KKK's, you've covered most groups.

This means, for example, that tenured academics in the "humanities" departments, due to their Marxist leanings should be screened more often than others.

 

[cristo]

Some people are just so pathetic! ...IMO, all should go through the same process equally, if there is any needed.

They have been doing since Christmas day, which has resulted in 2 or 3 hour delays on flights to the US (at least from the UK). Hardly something that can be kept up long term!

 

[Vanadium 50]

Now,...please. Give me a relevant example next time.

How about Ann-Marie Murphy, a 32-year old 5-6 months pregnant Irishwoman, who was caught carrying 1.5 kilos of semtex on a timer on an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv?

Indeed, she was chosen specifically because she didn't "meet the profile".

 

[Cyrus]

How about Ann-Marie Murphy, a 32-year old 5-6 months pregnant Irishwoman, who was caught carrying 1.5 kilos of semtex on a timer on an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv?

Indeed, she was chosen specifically because she didn't "meet the profile".

I googled her name and interestingly enough ran across this article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/15/60II/main324476.shtml

In it it says

What’s the safest airline in the world?

There's no question. It's El Al, Israel’s national airline.

What’s the safest airport? Ben Gurion, Israel’s international airport.

It's ironic, when you figure that Israeli aviation has been the single most desirable target for terrorists since the 1960s. Correspondent Bob Simon reports. What do the Israelis do that the Americans don’t do? Well, they’ve had sky marshals since the 1960s. And racial profiling...

Since Sept. 11, America has gotten serious about airline security - or has tried to. Dror asks how Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was ever allowed on that American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami.

"The first thing: Where is your suitcase? You are not going to the United States without any suitcase," says Dror. "How, where are you going to spend your time? Are you, are you going to sleep naked in the Central Park? What are you going to do over there without suitcase? So, this is the first question and that (will) raise a lot of red lights."

In fact, the Israelis got a chance to ask Reid a lot of questions, because he flew El Al last summer. They didn’t like the look of him, so they checked everything in his bags, and everything he was wearing, and then put an armed sky marshal in the seat right next to him.

 

[Monique]

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.

 

[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