snopes.com Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » SLC Central » Petty Bickering » Reporters Smuggle Knives Onto 14 Airline Flights During Labor Day Weekend (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Reporters Smuggle Knives Onto 14 Airline Flights During Labor Day Weekend
ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
...About the only thing of note is that once again reporters have proven something which is a pretty obvious reality. If you think airports (and aircraft) are secure, you're being lied to.

Jon

That's at best an overstatement, and at worst hysteria. From the article linked by Beach:
"'The TSA is looking for problems in the system daily so we can fix them," agency spokeswoman Mari Eder says of the tests. "We have issues to correct.'"

quote:
Originally posted by Kill Eye:
As for the reporters, we have the Bush administration telling us they've secured the airports and it's safe to fly. Someone has to highlight these flaws in the system, the government sure isn't.



[Confused] Reread the article and see who conducted the tests.

quote:
Originally posted by Beach Life:
...First, as I have said before, it wasn't the sharp thingies that allowed the plane to be hijacked so much as the fact that the passengers didn't know that hijackings meant anything more than a slight detour. Americans know better now. Nothing more is really required....



Is no point so obvious that it won't be overlooked? The flight the passengers fought back on still crashed. The difference was it didn't crash where the terrorists wanted it to crash.

All what we've seen stopped by passengers since are lone head-cases, on what basis do you extrapolate that airline passengers will be able to stop a future concerted attack in a manner that doesn't result in the plane still crashing that would be more certain than the 76%(from the article you linked)overall detection rate currently?

quote:
...Better solution, figure a way to check for explosive with air sniffing devices, en masse. Or someother explosive screening.....


And in the meantime...?

quote:
Originally posted by Dofwai:
Also, we have no way of knowing (because the reporters aren't going to tell us) how many times they simply gave up the prohibited items when they were found with them, and were allowed to board.



Exactly, items being found don't make the news, items slipping through do. In the same vein, it's impossible to tell how many terrorists have been thwarted since last year as terrorists not caught don't typically hold a press conference after the flight to announce the fact that "yessir, we were indeed disarmed and forced to abort our scheme."

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Kill Eye
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 601 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon:
quote:
Originally posted by Kill Eye:
As for the reporters, we have the Bush administration telling us they've secured the airports and it's safe to fly. Someone has to highlight these flaws in the system, the government sure isn't.



[Confused] Reread the article and see who conducted the tests.

Just to clarify my point. I'm sure (I hope) the goverment is testing it's security measures. But I want to know the results of those tests so I can make informed decisions about my risks in flying. The media is providing the information that the government isn't.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon:
[QUOTE]Is no point so obvious that it won't be overlooked? The flight the passengers fought back on still crashed. The difference was it didn't crash where the terrorists wanted it to crash.

What those heroic passengers and crew had to do was to, in the middle of the hijacking, almost instantly switch from the old paradigm (do what hijackers say and you'll probably be safe) to the new paradigm of stopping the hijackers at all cost. This switch occurred because learning by cell phone calls of the new hijacking scenario only occurred after the hijacking was underway and the hijackers had already gotten firm control of the cockpit. Because of this, brave passengers could save the intended ground target, but not themselves.

With today's reinforced cockpit doors, and with passengers on razor edge ready to assist in subduing hijackers, chances for a successful hijacking, suicidal or otherwise, are now low. The terrorists know this. As a result, there have been no successful hijackings, or even definite hijacking attempts, anywhere in the world in almost a year. These knife-toting reporters may not know that planes are now rather safe from hijacking, but the terrorists do.

The war criminals of the future will have to find means of terror other than hijacking passenger jetliners.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beach Life:
[QUOTEFirst, as I have said before, it wasn't the sharp thingies that allowed the plane to be hijacked so much as the fact that the passengers didn't know that hijackings meant anything more than a slight detour. Americans know better now. Nothing more is really required. The secuirty measure over-looks this fact and every other item that could be used as a weapon.

I agree with this 100%. The only additional nice to have safety feature is the reinforced, not to be opened, cockpit door, so that the folks trying to subdue any hijackers have the time they need to complete their work while the pilots continue to do their job.

What I can't agree with is arresting the reporters. The press can't do much of a job if it cannot bend some rules. For example, it would be impossible for a news organization to properly investigate a lousy, dangerous public high school if it could not enroll a young reporter as a student. And do people really want to forbid the oldest of their tricks, the reporter admitting himself (or, a la Nelly Bly, herself) to a state mental hospital to get the true inside story? How do you expect them to get the real inside story there -- by trusting the stories told the reporters by either staff or by psychotics? Even more everyday reporting commonly requires trespassing. If reporters can't sneak around, they are pretty worthless in my book.

Maybe it's me. I like stunt journalism.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Finite Fourier Alchemy
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Finite Fourier Alchemy   E-mail Finite Fourier Alchemy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dilbert:
If it gets too inconvenient, people will stop flying.

Hasn't that already happened? Ticket sales have stayed pretty low, haven't they? Isn't it possible a vast majority of people opting for other methods of transportation are not afraid but simply sick of dealing with security?

(anecdote)
I travel from South Carolina to Boston several times a year. I always drive now. It takes 17 hours, but that's less than twice as long as it would take to fly. Plus, more than half of the time at that airport would be spent waiting in lines, and much of that would consist of being searched and searched again.

I really dislike having a large, sweaty man force me to take off my shoes, stick his fingers inside them, then, with the same hands that have been inside the stink-caves of a thousand sweaty feet, empty the contents of my carry-on and every bag therein. So, yay, now my toothbrush, headphones, and Neil Gaiman book all reek of fungal foot funk. Thank you sir; may I have another?

I must have that evil scientist look people accuse of me, but I figured out how to blend in and avoid most searches - only the pre-board one is random in most places. Still, it's a real pain, and not worth $300 and most of my day. Driving for nearly a day straight is pretty terrible and no doubt dangerous, but it's the only way I know to vote my distaste for the current security system.
(/anecdote)

As long as we have the volume of airline passengers as we do, we will never have any way to prevent security breaches. Best to narrow our focus on truly destructive weapons that passengers cannot protect themselves against(firearms, explosives, etc.) and try to stop those, rather than picking out everything sharp. They will fail at that mission, and fail horribly once some terrorist realizes that, yes, knives can be made very easily from non-magnetic materials.

Alchemy

--------------------
Thinking about New England / missing old Japan

Posts: 2603 | From: Virginia | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Archangel
Spider Cider


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Archangel     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
An (ex) insiders view on how security works: Really its a lot like police. Being obnoxious, getting a bad rap around the town, sweat, smells and inconvenience are important parts of the PR game.

From individual inconvenienced members of the public it looks like the objective is detection/discovery. MoP then ends trip and complains long and loud about harsh airport security.

Result: Airport security wins.

Why: Because the real objective is deterrence, through inculcating in the public mind an idea that the security is so very thorough. The people who search you are probably indifferent to your probable guilt. In fact, were the policy entirely thought out they would make sure to search a percentage profiled of innocent complainers.

'Course its a cat that can't be let out of the bag too often, what with amendment 4 and all. Its problem is that it is formulated against an idea of opportunistic crime.

What is so scary about terrorism, esp s11 is that it is methodical, well planned crime, and the casualties of course ( [Frown]

My view; current security; effective PR; effective at picking up commonplace small weapons; effectiveness against terrorism, not really - the real work the public does not see.

Posts: 1749 | From: -> Canberra <-/ Hong Kong / London | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
That's at best an overstatement, and at worst hysteria. From the article linked by Beach:
"'The TSA is looking for problems in the system daily so we can fix them," agency spokeswoman Mari Eder says of the tests. "We have issues to correct.'"

Having been working in aviation for the last five years, and having clearance through the ICAO, I can confidently say that it is not an overstatement at all.

It just happens that for the last 20 years terrorists have been going about hijacking the hard way (and I'll leave it at that). Airports are living breathing entities and though most passengers only see the terminal and gates. It takes a great deal more to make an aircraft fly than a few baggage handlers and a pilot.

Jon

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:
With today's reinforced cockpit doors, and with passengers on razor edge ready to assist in subduing hijackers, chances for a successful hijacking, suicidal or otherwise, are now low. The terrorists know this. As a result, there have been no successful hijackings, or even definite hijacking attempts, anywhere in the world in almost a year. These knife-toting reporters may not know that planes are now rather safe from hijacking, but the terrorists do.

That sounds like a recipe for complacency and a somewhat pollyanna view of things.

All what you've written indicates that the element of surprise is no longer on the terrorist's side, and will no longer be in their favor. That just means the next paradigm to change will be the established procedure of rising up en-masse to announce the hijacking, I suspect they will adapt with more subtle methods instead of just giving up the idea entirely.

Relaxing security now will make that easier, I don't doubt terrorists are very good at playing waiting games.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
colin sky
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Some of the rationale for the myriad of bans on sharp objects are undoubtedly related to the fact that instead of calling attention to themselves by bringing a weapon on board, potential hijackers might plan to make use of a sharp object they find on board. That, for instance, explains the (kinda-sorta) ban on metal knifes and untensils on board.

Now, even though they were testing security, under that mode of thinking they made the fight potentially more dangerous by having the objects in the aiport and plane, even though they personally had no intent of "using" them.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dofwai
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kill Eye:
But I want to know the results of those tests so I can make informed decisions about my risks in flying. The media is providing the information that the government isn't.

I'm sorry to be the one to say it for you, but the fact is this: no flight will ever be 100% safe from terrorist actions. We don't need the media to point out what I see as obvious: that security screeners are human and make mistakes. We can train them, pay them more, provide them with better tools and procedures, etc, etc, but we will NEVER eliminate all errors.

Every flight you take entails some risk. So does every drive down the freeway, every bus ride, and every walk down the sidewalk. I believe that flying, like any other action, is a decision of how much risk one is willing to take to accomplish what is desired.

I believe airline security could be improved, beyond a doubt. I also believe the TSA is trying, as best as possible within budget and civil rights constraints, to do so. I will continue to fly when I need to, with the knowledge that I am taking a small, but real, risk when I do so.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dofwai
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
Having been working in aviation for the last five years, and having clearance through the ICAO, I can confidently say that it is not an overstatement at all.

It just happens that for the last 20 years terrorists have been going about hijacking the hard way (and I'll leave it at that). Airports are living breathing entities and though most passengers only see the terminal and gates. It takes a great deal more to make an aircraft fly than a few baggage handlers and a pilot.

Jon

Also part of my point about reporters not helping the situation.

Terrorists are smart people (well, some of them are, but that's a different thread), but they can't come up with all the ideas for circumventing security. Does it really help to find vulnerabilities for them, and make them public? What is wrong with telling the TSA "hey, I just thought of a really easy way to get by security, maybe you want to look into plugging that hole" rather than saying, "Look, world, what a clever idea I came up with". Now, just maybe you've given Joe terrorist the last piece of his plan he was struggling with.

Personally, I want terrorists to continue to do things the "hard way" while security experts continue to try to fix those last holes....

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Kill Eye
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 601 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dofwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Kill Eye:
But I want to know the results of those tests so I can make informed decisions about my risks in flying. The media is providing the information that the government isn't.

I'm sorry to be the one to say it for you, but the fact is this: no flight will ever be 100% safe from terrorist actions. We don't need the media to point out what I see as obvious: that security screeners are human and make mistakes. We can train them, pay them more, provide them with better tools and procedures, etc, etc, but we will NEVER eliminate all errors.

Every flight you take entails some risk. So does every drive down the freeway, every bus ride, and every walk down the sidewalk. I believe that flying, like any other action, is a decision of how much risk one is willing to take to accomplish what is desired.

I believe airline security could be improved, beyond a doubt. I also believe the TSA is trying, as best as possible within budget and civil rights constraints, to do so. I will continue to fly when I need to, with the knowledge that I am taking a small, but real, risk when I do so.

So since flying will never be 100% safe, reporters should just give up doing stories about it?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ewok
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
On a recent trip I was pre-selected, at the ticket counter, for the extra special at-the-gate screening. And then allowed to wander around before getting back in line to board....

Not to mention that Continental is serving beer in glass bottles now. [Roll Eyes] How convenient, you don't even have to bother tearing your aluminum can apart to make a shiv.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dofwai
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kill Eye:
So since flying will never be 100% safe, reporters should just give up doing stories about it?

Works for me! [Big Grin]

[edited to add: And since Britney Spears will never have any redeeming social value, they should stop doing stories about her, too!! [Thwack] [Laughing out loud] ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dofwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Kill Eye:
So since flying will never be 100% safe, reporters should just give up doing stories about it?

Works for me! [Big Grin]

[edited to add: And since Britney Spears will never have any redeeming social value, they should stop doing stories about her, too!! [Thwack] [Laughing out loud] ]

So we the press should only do storys that have redeeming social values and relate to problems that can be 100% solved? What does that leave?

Beach...is it 1984...Life!

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dofwai
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beach Life:
quote:
Originally posted by dofwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Kill Eye:
So since flying will never be 100% safe, reporters should just give up doing stories about it?

Works for me! [Big Grin]

[edited to add: And since Britney Spears will never have any redeeming social value, they should stop doing stories about her, too!! [Thwack] [Laughing out loud] ]

So we the press should only do storys that have redeeming social values and relate to problems that can be 100% solved? What does that leave?

Beach...is it 1984...Life!

Oh lighten up, it's a joke, son. Joke, I say!

(sheesh, to many people here taking life serious!)

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'll leave it at this... Regarding "fixing the remaining holes". Spend a few weeks in the industry and you'll realize that there are holes which can't be fixed. It is impossible to make airports extremely secure unless you are willing to completely kill the aviation industry. A bit of a catch 22.

All that one can do is make it tougher for passengers to get knives etc. on board. This obviously won't be 100% and mostly serves to make Joe Passenger feel better about flying.

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
I'll leave it at this... Regarding "fixing the remaining holes". Spend a few weeks in the industry and you'll realize that there are holes which can't be fixed. It is impossible to make airports extremely secure unless you are willing to completely kill the aviation industry. A bit of a catch 22.

All that one can do is make it tougher for passengers to get knives etc. on board. This obviously won't be 100% and mostly serves to make Joe Passenger feel better about flying.

A couple of weeks ago. I was at the Museum of Science and Industry with my kids. As we were leaving, I couldn't help but notice the only security guard on the main floor. He must have been 300 pounds, as round as beach ball and apparently working up a sweat just standing there. No gun, no weapon of any kind, just a walkie-talkie.

This guy's security goes only so far as the respect for his uniform. Beyond that, as security goes, he was a joke. I didn't feel any safer, and adding five more guys in a similar state of health wouldn't help either.

The point is that adding clownish security measures that nobody takes seriously isn't making anyone feel safer about flying. In fact it has the opposite effect. When a guard makes a bid deal and performs a body search on an little kid or a 90 year old because they have darning needles or blunt nosed scissors, nobody breaths a sigh of relief because they feel safer.

Instead, these security procedures make one wonder about the judgement of the security people. How can I take an airport security peron making a fuss about blunt scissors seriously? How does that make anyone feel safer. The sever lack of judgement shown works against security in the same way the fat man works against security.

On the ignorant and those with blind respect for authority feel safer.

Beach...and the terrorists just smile and see the holes...Life!

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ewok
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
All that one can do is make it tougher for passengers to get knives etc. on board. This obviously won't be 100% and mostly serves to make Joe Passenger feel better about flying.
I'd feel a lot safer if I could keep my knife with me, thankyouverymuch.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
colin sky
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Just to revisit this topic...

"While some news organizations have tried to sneak material through airport screeners, ABC News thought bigger: the network smuggled depleted uranium into New York. "

http://www.salon.com/ent/wire/2002/09/06/uranium/index.html

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
aelzemos, fluffy love
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 02 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beach Life:

It's not that I am for lax security, just against adding stupid measures that would only stop stupid people and take away everyone's liberties.

Beach...smart solutions, is that asking much?...Life!

You know, I've had this exact same conversation with a friend of mine who was upset that her 80-year-old mother was searched. She thought it was ridiculous.

I'd had a response written, but deleted it, as I realize that I am *much* too overemotional to even be discussing this right now. All I will say is that last year, I watched my city fall apart, and have watched over the last year as we've all picked up the pieces. I didn't fall asleep the night of 9/11 and stayed up all night because I was waiting for a bomb to fall. I really expected to be dead by the next morning. So I feel that everyone who flies should be stripped naked and searched, which I realize is an overreaction, but it's not far from what should really happen.

Amanda "A year hasn't been long enough" S.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aelzemos, fluffy love:
quote:
Originally posted by Beach Life:

It's not that I am for lax security, just against adding stupid measures that would only stop stupid people and take away everyone's liberties.

Beach...smart solutions, is that asking much?...Life!

You know, I've had this exact same conversation with a friend of mine who was upset that her 80-year-old mother was searched. She thought it was ridiculous.

I'd had a response written, but deleted it, as I realize that I am *much* too overemotional to even be discussing this right now. All I will say is that last year, I watched my city fall apart, and have watched over the last year as we've all picked up the pieces. I didn't fall asleep the night of 9/11 and stayed up all night because I was waiting for a bomb to fall. I really expected to be dead by the next morning. So I feel that everyone who flies should be stripped naked and searched, which I realize is an overreaction, but it's not far from what should really happen.

Amanda "A year hasn't been long enough" S.

It is for love of my country and liberties that I argue as I do. I saw the same thing you saw last year and am not too proud to say that I cried every day for at least a week. It was awful and I would gladly give up much that I hold near and dear to prevent another incident.

Strip searching actually makes more sense then a lot of the crap they are doing, because though people are loosing liberties it is effective. If we continue to take away liberties without increasing effectiveness, we lose, the terrorists win.

Beach...just making it appear like we are trying isn't enough...Life!

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
aelzemos, fluffy love
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 601 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beach Life:
It is for love of my country and liberties that I argue as I do. I saw the same thing you saw last year and am not too proud to say that I cried every day for at least a week.

Did you spend the morning on the phone trying to track down friends and employees and co-workers while they did the same with you, because no one knew if one of us was at the site? Did you have to force yourself to leave your building to try and get home, although you were scared that the attacks weren't over? Did you watch papers and ash from the WTC float down on your stoop as you managed to get home from work that afternoon? Did you later find out that two of your friends didn't make it out alive? Did you spend the next four months breathing acrid air and smelling the smoke?

I did. So did hundreds of thousands of other New Yorkers. And if restricting civil liberties might help someone else keep their friend, or their daughter, or their father--then I'm all for it. And I am the *last* person who *ever* thought they'd be saying something like that.

[edited to add: BL, I apologize for the way this is coming across. I don't mean to sound like "Well, you weren't there, so you don't know.". I just meant to give it from the perspective of someone who's still pretty terrified of *everything* and anything. No harm meant. I've been trying to stay away from all of these topics because I know I'm too emotionally charged right now, so I'll certainly let this issue be. I think I just need to stay off my message baords until tomorrow is over.]

Amanda

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
What strikes me as odd is that up until this point, people were willing to die to protect their civil liberties. Think of all those folks who died to help earn civil liberties.

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
What strikes me as odd is that up until this point, people were willing to die to protect their civil liberties. Think of all those folks who died to help earn civil liberties.

I'm not aware anyone died so that we would be free of screening by security before being allowed on a plane.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has ruled that the random drug screening of transportation employees in the interest of public safety is not unconstitutional, therefore by extension screening of passengers by security agents in the interest of public safety is not a "denial of civil liberties."

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Zen your ability to place words in my mouth and know exactly what I am thinking is Uncanny. First you distilled years of experience in the aviation industry to the simple fact that I was hysterical...

Now dear Zen, if you put down the paper airplanes for a minute you'll notice I was not talking about security screening, but rather civil liberties. You see, Zen, you could tell what I was talking about by something called context. A poster said they'd gladly give up civil liberties to prevent deaths, and then I came back and commented on civil liberties.

I'm not the brightest guy out there, but if I was talking about Airport Screenings, I would have writen "a-i-r-p-o-r-t s-c-r-e-e-n-i-n-g-s" rather than "C-i-v-i-l l-i-b-e-r-t-i-e-s". Just as when I refer to apples I say apples rather than oranges.

Get it? Good boy, you can have your paper airplanes back.

Jon

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ms.Hollywood
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
Zen your ability to place words in your mouth and know exactly what I am thinking is Uncanny. First you distilled years of experience in the aviation industry to the simple fact that I was hysterical...

Now dear Zen, if you put down the paper airplanes for a minute you'll notice I was not talking about security screening, but rather civil liberties. You see, Zen, you could tell that I was talking about by something called context. A poster said they'd gladly give up civil liberties to prevent deaths, and then I came back and commented on civil liberties.

I'm not the brightest guy out there, but if I was talking about Airport Screenings, I would have writen "a-i-r-p-o-r-t s-c-r-e-e-n-i-n-g-s" rather than "C-i-v-i-l l-i-b-e-r-t-i-e-s". Just as when I refer to apples I say apples rather than oranges.

Get it? Good boy, you can have your paper airplanes back.

Jon

It sounds like that is what he is talking about, too. I can't believe I am backing ZenKnight, but I agree with him on this point. Civil liberties don't apply in security situations and never have.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Again I was not commenting on airport security.

An individual said they'd gladly give up their civil liberties in order to prevent future deaths. I said that it was rather in contrast to the many who would give up their lives to protect civil liberties.

I have already spoke my peace regarding airport security.

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aelzemos, fluffy love:
quote:
Originally posted by Beach Life:
It is for love of my country and liberties that I argue as I do. I saw the same thing you saw last year and am not too proud to say that I cried every day for at least a week.

Did you spend the morning on the phone trying to track down friends and employees and co-workers while they did the same with you, because no one knew if one of us was at the site? Did you have to force yourself to leave your building to try and get home, although you were scared that the attacks weren't over? Did you watch papers and ash from the WTC float down on your stoop as you managed to get home from work that afternoon? Did you later find out that two of your friends didn't make it out alive? Did you spend the next four months breathing acrid air and smelling the smoke?

I did. So did hundreds of thousands of other New Yorkers. And if restricting civil liberties might help someone else keep their friend, or their daughter, or their father--then I'm all for it. And I am the *last* person who *ever* thought they'd be saying something like that.

[edited to add: BL, I apologize for the way this is coming across. I don't mean to sound like "Well, you weren't there, so you don't know.". I just meant to give it from the perspective of someone who's still pretty terrified of *everything* and anything. No harm meant. I've been trying to stay away from all of these topics because I know I'm too emotionally charged right now, so I'll certainly let this issue be. I think I just need to stay off my message baords until tomorrow is over.]

Amanda

Who I knew in NewYork and the people close to me who were lost on 9/11 have nothing to do with the arguement.

If you read my posts, I am not even against giving up civil liberties in the name of increases security. I am against giving up liberties to make it look like we are increasing security when if fact we are not. You should be against the same. I don't take my civil liberties or yours lightly, nor do I take security lightly.

When my daughter was much younger she had a rash on her feet. I tried to use fungicide to clear it up, but the problem got worse. I took her to the doctor who told me that kids don't get foot fungus. As a result while I thought I was helping, I was actually hurting. Should I continue using fungicide because I'm just trying to help? Should I continue to use it because a friend of mine lost a food to an ugly rash? No? Then why should we continue to harm Americans with increased 'security' measures which hurt them but don't help the situation.

I can't speak for you, but I've a friend that I will never see again. A friend who died exactly a year ago tomorrow. To think that people are trying to take civil liberties away with no return in her memory makes me sick.

Beach...good intentions alone won't save a single life...Life!

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Nice temper tantrum there, Jon, take it easy before you have a stroke.

quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
Zen your ability to place words in my mouth and know exactly what I am thinking is Uncanny. First you distilled years of experience in the aviation industry to the simple fact that I was hysterical...



How many years is "years of experience in the aviation industry"? 10? 15? 20? A lifetime of moving through the ranks in a career spanning decades?

quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
Having been working in aviation for the last five years, and having clearance through the ICAO....



O, 5 years.

You go on to say I characterized your words "If you think airports (and aircraft) are secure, you're being lied to" following an article where the TSA is quoted explicitly stating that problems involving this very issue remained to be solved as hysteria, but didn't I in actuality say they fell somewhere in a continuum?

quote:
Originally posted by Zenknight, Jaded Desert Dragon:
That's at best an overstatement, and at worst hysteria.



quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
Now dear Zen, if you put down the paper airplanes for a minute you'll notice I was not talking about security screening, but rather civil liberties. You see, Zen, you could tell what I was talking about by something called context. A poster said they'd gladly give up civil liberties to prevent deaths, and then I came back and commented on civil liberties.



Does "context" differ from "context"? Cause when I look at the history, I see you responding to a conversation matching a thread concerned with, oddly enough, a discussion of airport security. Not only that, the poster(Beach Life) whose remarks prompted the bit you were responding to(Amanda's) is the same poster who framed the discussion of airport security in terms of the 4th amendment concerning civil liberties, to wit: unreasonable search and seizure.

What did you think the following in the conversation you responded to:

quote:
Originally posted by Beach Life:
Strip searching actually makes more sense then a lot of the crap they are doing, because though people are loosing liberties it is effective. If we continue to take away liberties without increasing effectiveness, we lose, the terrorists win

was a reference to?

I'll give you a hint:

quote:
Originally posted by aelzemos, fluffy love:
So I feel that everyone who flies should be stripped naked and searched, which I realize is an overreaction, but it's not far from what should really happen.

quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
I'm not the brightest guy out there, but if I was talking about Airport Screenings, I would have writen "a-i-r-p-o-r-t s-c-r-e-e-n-i-n-g-s" rather than "C-i-v-i-l l-i-b-e-r-t-i-e-s". Just as when I refer to apples I say apples rather than oranges.

Get it? Good boy, you can have your paper airplanes back.

Jon

Most people when joining a discussion of apples(in this case a discussion of civil liberties as they relate airport security) to discuss oranges(civil liberties not relative to airport security) flag that change of context, but your failure to do so suggests sloppiness on your part--not a failure of others to divine your intent.

If you'd like to join the adults in a conversion you're more than welcome, but kindly remember that leaving childish outbursts at the kid's table is expected.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ms.Hollywood:
I can't believe I am backing ZenKnight, but I agree with him on this point.

I can't either, but thank you. [Smile]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dofwai:
Terrorists are smart people (well, some of them are, but that's a different thread), but they can't come up with all the ideas for circumventing security. Does it really help to find vulnerabilities for them, and make them public? What is wrong with telling the TSA "hey, I just thought of a really easy way to get by security, maybe you want to look into plugging that hole" rather than saying, "Look, world, what a clever idea I came up with". Now, just maybe you've given Joe terrorist the last piece of his plan he was struggling with.

Unless one assumes that the security people read the same newspapers that terrorists do, and are taking steps to plug up that loophole.

It seems to me that a reporter gets a lot better results by printing his story than simply going up to the head of airport security and noting a problem.

Imagine:

Mr. Joe Citizen: Excuse me, you have a problem. I just managed to sneak five box cutters past your screeners by hiding them inside my hatband.

Mr. Security Guy: Guard, arrest this man.

Mr. Joe Citizen: But. ... But. ... I'm just trying to bring this to your attention so you can fix it.

Mr. Security Guy: Get him out of here.

Mr. Guard: You have the right to remain silent. You have the right ....

.............

Joe Reporter's story: A newspaper reporter today smuggled five box cutters past screeners ....
Mr. Security Guy: (Throws down paper, runs off to yell at screeners and meet with his lieutenants. Later holds a press conference.) Today I have instituted new methods ...

Pogue "that's how it works" Mahone

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dofwai
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 02 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, Pogue, just in case I haven't said it today:

Thanks for being a hero, and representing the only voices of sanity in our society, the press/media. Thank God (no wait, I can't say that I'm violating someone's constitutional rights..) Thank Heaven (no...) Thank the stars (umm,) Thankfully, we have our heroic media to keep us all safe from harm.

One difference now is that the United States and international news media are broadcasting reports about security preparations for July Fourth festivities, which might have a tendency to create "a self-fulfilling prophecy" in raising the apparent threat level, one official said.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in freedom of speech, the press, and all the other freedoms we have. I am willing to sacrifice whatever I must to preserve them. That being said I don't believe the press finding ways to circumvent security and making them public helps ensure our safety!!
[hypothetical report] "CNN has discovered today that if you mix the following chemicals in the following proportions, then place the resulting mixture within the following distance of this building (marked by an X on this photo) you could cause XX number of casualties" [/hypothetical report]
[not so hypothetical report] "ABC reporters lined a bag with lead to defeat the X-ray machine, and were able to sneak in weapons" [/not so hypothetical report]

Who are we really helping here?

They broke a law. They should be punished.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dofwai
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 108 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Submitted without Comment:

Who Will Bring Closure to a Grieving Nation?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dofwai:
Well, Pogue, just in case I haven't said it today:

Thanks for being a hero, and representing the only voices of sanity in our society, the press/media. Thank God (no wait, I can't say that I'm violating someone's constitutional rights..) Thank Heaven (no...) Thank the stars (umm,) Thankfully, we have our heroic media to keep us all safe from harm.

One difference now is that the United States and international news media are broadcasting reports about security preparations for July Fourth festivities, which might have a tendency to create "a self-fulfilling prophecy" in raising the apparent threat level, one official said.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in freedom of speech, the press, and all the other freedoms we have. I am willing to sacrifice whatever I must to preserve them. That being said I don't believe the press finding ways to circumvent security and making them public helps ensure our safety!!
[hypothetical report] "CNN has discovered today that if you mix the following chemicals in the following proportions, then place the resulting mixture within the following distance of this building (marked by an X on this photo) you could cause XX number of casualties" [/hypothetical report]
[not so hypothetical report] "ABC reporters lined a bag with lead to defeat the X-ray machine, and were able to sneak in weapons" [/not so hypothetical report]

Who are we really helping here?

They broke a law. They should be punished.

Okay, assuming that I can rationalize with you, let's look at the facts:

1. Though it might appear otherwise to some, security is clearly not stopping weapons.

2. Terrorists probably have figured this out the same many Americans have figured it out.

3. Others, and I believe you fall into this category, either don't see the security problems or don't want to admit to them.

4. The media does some tests and forces the American people to see that in fact statement 1 is true.

The end result, one would hope, would be better security. Explain to me again why this is a bad thing?

Why should these people be thrown in jail while it is the ignorance and complacency of others which put American lives at risk?

Do you think the end result of thier report will be better security? Do you think terrorists are so dense that they didn't know this before and are now saying "oh yea, good idea, let's get right on this..."

Beach...let me get this straight, it is okay to take away liberties for ineffective security, but we should jail someone for point out the security is ineffective...Life!

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2