Full body scans for US bound flights

[Cyrus]

The hijackers on 9/11 weren't your average arab but the Sikh guy that gets pulled out of line at security because he is wearing a turban doesn't care about that.

No one claimed they were. But they were middle eastern. The Sikh can get over being searched in the name of security.

 

[mgb_phys]

So you simply switch the security to the last attacker?
So from 4/19 to 9/11 you check only white ex-marines, then you switch to check only saudi's
Then a Japanese suicide cult launches a gas attack on the subway you switch to checking only Japanese.

 

[Cyrus]

So you simply switch the security to the last attacker?
So from 4/19 to 9/11 you check only white ex-marines, then you switch to check only saudi's
Then a Japanese suicide cult launches a gas attack on the subway you switch to checking only Japanese.

If the 'last attacker' is still attacking you, don't you think that seems like a reasonable premise?

What do you propose as an alternative that maximizes available resources?

 

[dotman]

What do you propose as an alternative that maximizes available resources?

A scheme that puts you one step ahead, instead of one step behind, is a good start.

 

[turbo]

The reactionary responses by people in power seem to be CYA moves for the most part. If someone wanted to terrorize the citizens of the US, they could have parked a McVeigh-style fertilizer truck bomb right in front of a Super-Wal-Mart on the morning of Black Friday after the store had been open for a bit. Kill all the register clerks, greeters, etc, as well as lines and lines of people queued up at the checkouts. And since there is a LOT of glass fronting any given Wal-Mart, there would be deadly shrapnel. Terrorists have a target-rich environment in the US, and Homeland Security would consume all of the federal budget if we had to adopt security measures necessary to prevent the most deadly attacks.

 

[Cyrus]

A scheme that puts you one step ahead, instead of one step behind, is a good start.

This is nothing more than a feel good statement. I asked a question about pragmatism, not idealism.

 

[mgb_phys]

Locking cockpit doors.
Traffic bollards preventing trucks driving upto federal buildings
Treating people as part of the solution - not relying on rent-a-cops to confiscate breast milk.
We have had 40years of terrorist attacks, and ads every christmas asking people to report suspicous packages in shopping malls and on public transport.

This worked a lot better than a kafka-esque no-fly list that contains people too dangerous to be allowed on a plane but not dangerous enough to arrest, although it actually seems to contain mostly names of congressmen, cartoon characters and people from Nixon's enemies list.

Or confiscating liquids from people but then not questioning them further and just dumping the potential explosives in a bin. If I tried to take a gun through security would they simply tell me to drop it in the bin and not do it again? If they seriously think the liquids are explosives.

Background checks on the 1000s of people that work on the airside of airports, servicing planes, driving unsearched trucks onto the tarmac everyday might also make more sense than taking butter knives off pilots.

 

[dotman]

This is nothing more than a feel good statement. I asked a question about pragmatism, not idealism.

No it's not. And I've already stated exactly what these measures are earlier in this thread.

 

[mgb_phys]

If the 'last attacker' is still attacking you, don't you think that seems like a reasonable premise?

The TSA doesn't think so.
The 9/11 hijackers had Saudi passports. The TSA list of passports to check, or at least the secret list they published by blacking out the words in the PDF
"Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen and Algeria"

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq - no
Cuba, North Korea - yes, perhaps Cuba and N Korea have converted to radical Shite Islam but the press haven't picked up on this yet.

 

[Cyrus]

No it's not. And I've already stated exactly what these measures are earlier in this thread.

Yes: it is, as we are talking specifically about direct airport security. I also stated, earlier in this thread, the invalidity of your previous posts.

 

[Cyrus]

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq - no
Cuba, North Korea - yes, perhaps Cuba and N Korea have converted to radical Shite Islam but the press haven't picked up on this yet.

I'm not sure what you are trying to convey with this post. Cuba and North Korea are enemies of the United States, and are treated as such. I have no idea why you raise the issue.

 

[ranger]

1. Of course I can, for example, accuse Muslims for being extremely over-represented in terrorist attacks.
Because it is true. Whether you like it or not.

I don't think people are naive enough these days to pass belief on the statement"a few rotten apples spoils the barrel." [And no Muslims are not apples, if that's the response you can come up with]

1. It is not an act of suppression to perform a full body scan of a 90-year old grandmother.
2. Nor is it any act of suppression to perform a full body scan of a Muslim, niqab or not.

Yes is it. You are are removing from them their right to travel freely and without discrimination.

Since they haven't been suppressed in any way, they are not entitled to "do anything against it".
If they do, then they prove their moral degeneracy, if they don't, they get the benefit of doubt.

Change the words and add sugar to them as you like. If a group is unfairly treated, they entitled to retaliate.

And again, you don't bother with the costs involved in such a change of tactics.

If such happened, of course it would be another morally degenerate group. So?

Of course the cost matters. It just proves your proposal is flawed.
You're running yourself in circles here. Firstly, you vehemently support the unfair treatment of Muslims, calling them morally degenerate. Then when tactics are changed and another group becomes morally degenerate, the best you can come up with is 'so?'? You're moving the problem among group various groups, so you can once more begin bashing of another religion or group of people.

So being black is the same as being muslim?
Furthermore, specific profiling is not an act of suppression.

Obviously being black is not. I'm just trying to make you wake up to the real world so you can see the repercussions of profiling in that it won't be taken silently as it was in the past.

 

[Cyrus]

Ranger, what 'right' to travel freely?

You have a passport issued by the government. If the want, they can deny you travel. I am aware of no such right. Please show me where this is stated.

 

[ranger]

Back to topic or we lock

It should have been done a long time ago :/

 

[ranger]

Ranger, what 'right' to travel freely?

You have a passport issued by the government. If the want, they can deny you travel. I am aware of no such right. Please show me where this is stated.

Given the context of the discussion, you are purposefully misinterpreting the word "freely" here.

If you are huddling all Muslims to be scrutinized while the rest are not treated in the same manner; if you can deny all Muslims with visa entry while others with visa are given entry. Then they [Muslims] are not able to travel with the same freedom as the other groups of travelers.

 

[rootX]

Make non-discriminatory policy officially but scrutinize the Arabs more. Everyone will be happy.

I believe this is already been done as I heard from people who have Arabic background.

 

[Monique]

This is what the United Nations has to say about the matter:

The Committee notes with concern that despite the measures adopted at the federal and state levels to combat racial profiling, including the elaboration by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice of the Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies,– such practice continues to be widespread. In particular, the Committee is deeply concerned about the increase in racial profiling against Arabs, Muslims and South Asians in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attack, as well as about the development of the National Entry and Exit Registration System (NEERS) for nationals of 25 countries, all located in the Middle East, South Asia or North Africa (arts. 2 and 5 (b)).

[..] The Committee also draws the attention of the State party to its general recommendation No. 30 (2004) on discrimination against non-citizens, according to which measures taken in the fight against terrorism must not discriminate, in purpose or effect, on the grounds of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin, and urges the State party, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 1 (c), of the Convention, to put an end to the National Entry and Exit Registration System (NEERS) and to eliminate other forms of racial profiling against Arabs, Muslims and South Asians.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/419/82/PDF/G0841982.pdf?OpenElement

 

[MotoH]

Full body scans should have been implemented a long time ago. I for one would rather have a certified technician see my private parts, than have some terrorist bring my plane down.

In my opinion, airports should be ten times more secure than they are today. If you do not like the rules because they are "infringing on my rights man!" I hear they run buses from major city to major city.

It is not racial profiling when you stop everyone and search them manually. Luggage should be searched, there should be more security guards also. You know that muslims are going to be watched more carefully than other religions/races. It is undeniable. Not all muslims are terrorists, but darn near all terrorists are muslims. This would be true about Catholics too if the IRA were a big deal and they were watched carefully by the British government at the time.

 

[mgb_phys]

Make non-discriminatory policy officially but scrutinize the Arabs more.

So have we decided who the enemy is then?
Is it Saudi's, Iraqis, Afghans, Arabs or Muslims? (or according to the TSA Cubans)

It's a bit like having an IRA bombing attack and responding by increasing searches of Italians (catholics) or Welsh (celtic) or Scots (Europeans)

So in an airport queue who gets extra security checks ?
Saudi (dressed as a prince)
Saudi (oil/investment company executive)
Pakistani
Pakistani in military dictator uniform
Lebanese christian
Lebanese christian (nun)
Iraqi
American muslim (middle eastern appearance)
American muslim (african america)
American muslim (white 70s pop star)

 

[Cyrus]

Given the context of the discussion, you are purposefully misinterpreting the word "freely" here.

If you are huddling all Muslims to be scrutinized while the rest are not treated in the same manner; if you can deny all Muslims with visa entry while others with visa are given entry. Then they [Muslims] are not able to travel with the same freedom as the other groups of travelers.

And? Selection of Visa entry based on nationality happens all the time. Are you not aware of this?

How am I misinterpreting the word "freely" when I said the word right.

 

[rootX]

So have we decided who the enemy is then?
Is it Saudi's, Iraqis, Afghans, Arabs or Muslims? (or according to the TSA Cubans)

It's a bit like having an IRA bombing attack and responding by increasing searches of Italians (catholics) or Welsh (celtic) or Scots (Europeans)

50%/significant %age of the security should have Islamic/Suadi background who decide who should be the enemy? I would say if they want to do Arabic profiling which they will anyway regardless what is the official policy, they should hire some Middle east background people.

 

[Cyrus]

This is what the United Nations has to say about the matter:

UN opinion noted...and ignored. Why do I care what the UN has to say on this issue?

 

[MotoH]

So have we decided who the enemy is then?
Is it Saudi's, Iraqis, Afghans, Arabs or Muslims? (or according to the TSA Cubans)

It's a bit like having an IRA bombing attack and responding by increasing searches of Italians (catholics) or Welsh (celtic) or Scots (Europeans)

So in an airport queue who gets extra security checks ?
Saudi (dressed as a prince)
Saudi (oil/investment company executive)
Pakistani
Pakistani in military dictator uniform
Lebanese christian
Lebanese christian (nun)
Iraqi
American muslim (middle eastern appearance)
American muslim (african america)
American muslim (white 70s pop star)

Dont forget the protestants. They are always up to no good.

 

[Monique]

UN opinion noted...and ignored. Why do I care what the UN has to say on this issue?

How about this, Cyrus?:

"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."

It's that bad that if you went on vacation to Iran, that you must make sure that you have every trace of it removed before trying to get a visa to enter the United States. I know innocent people who needed to get new passports, to prevent unfair treatment.

 

[Evo]

This is as good a place to close as any. I think everyone has had their say.