Lest we profile terrorists?????

[Fred762]

Somali man was detained trying to board flt w explosive 'similar to' that used Christmas day on the Detriot flt...

um .....could he be another.....muslim male?? Or should we continue to strip search old ladies and good lookin white girls???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/...f/af_somalia_1

[ReconLdr]

Somali man was detained trying to board flt w explosive 'similar to' that used Christmas day on the Detriot flt...

um .....could he be another.....muslim male?? Or should we continue to strip search old ladies and good lookin white girls???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/...f/af_somalia_1

I don't have a problem with the bolded section... Well maybe we should do the same to good looking black, asian and latino women too... It's all about national security!!!!

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Only problem I see is they'll get 'non-traditional' terrorists (i.e. whites) to do this crazy stuff. But I agree with the premise. Last time I flown, I was with family. Apparently my 90-year-old grandfather who had change in his pocket is a threat to blow up an airplane. TSA is a waste of money and isn't much more effective than an unmanned camera that isn't recording. But they're still better than the joke of security in these African countries, I'm sure.

[Al-Mumit]

Only problem I see is they'll get 'non-traditional' terrorists (i.e. whites) to do this crazy stuff. But I agree with the premise. Last time I flown, I was with family. Apparently my 90-year-old grandfather who had change in his pocket is a threat to blow up an airplane. TSA is a waste of money and isn't much more effective than an unmanned camera that isn't recording. But they're still better than the joke of security in these African countries, I'm sure.

QFT

Suppose TSA 'profiled' firearm owners? Nothing says 'radical terrorist' like owning an AK, right?

[Philbert]

Only problem I see is they'll get 'non-traditional' terrorists (i.e. whites) to do this crazy stuff. But I agree with the premise. Last time I flown, I was with family. Apparently my 90-year-old grandfather who had change in his pocket is a threat to blow up an airplane. TSA is a waste of money and isn't much more effective than an unmanned camera that isn't recording. But they're still better than the joke of security in these African countries, I'm sure.

Screening has to be random for this reason. You can't give people a pass because they don't look like they could threaten a plane. They don't have to. Anyone might set off metal detector because he's carrying something that will be handed off to a terrorist inside the security perimeter. If any group gets a security pass they will become targets for terrorist recruitment, blackmail, or just use as unwitting mules.

This is the limitation of searching for weapons rather than searching for terrorists. It has a very low hit rate and has to be randomized to avoid opening holes. The only good thing about it is that it can be done randomly (ie, you can find weapons if you search people). There's no mass screening test that will diagnose a terrorist. Yet.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Screening has to be random for this reason. You can't give people a pass because they don't look like they could threaten a plane. They don't have to. Anyone might set off metal detector because he's carrying something that will be handed off to a terrorist inside the security perimeter. If any group gets a security pass they will become targets for terrorist recruitment, blackmail, or just use as unwitting mules.

This is the limitation of searching for weapons rather than searching for terrorists. It has a very low hit rate and has to be randomized to avoid opening holes. The only good thing about it is that it can be done randomly (ie, you can find weapons if you search people). There's no mass screening test that will diagnose a terrorist. Yet.

Some guy I was listening to on the radio yesterday made a good point. Basically we're trying to fight the newest threat. A guy tries to slip explosives in his shoes, we start frantically checking shoes. Then someone will try sneaking a bomb in through his eyeglasses, so we'll be checking everyone's eyeglasses. Then it'll be through tampons. Who knows. Point is criminals will always adapt to what authority is doing, so authority has to check for everything. Then the problem arises of how long this will take. Will everyone who wants to fly somewhere have to spend a night at the airport because it takes so long to search everyone/everything? Where do we compromise?

I have no doubt that flying will never be 100% safe no matter what we do. Where will the next threat come from? When will they stop trying to board airplanes and infiltrate from the inside (i.e. become pilots, crew members, baggage handlers, etc.)? This ideology is patient; they will have no problem waiting 20 years to concoct the perfect plan.

Best we can hope for is being super vigilant and, if that fails, hope there are brave people aboard a plane to thwart any gutless attempt of terrorism.

[markshere2]

The only successful preventions we hear about have been when ordinary citizens get involved. ( flight 93 9-11-2001, Christmas flight into Detroit, Richard Reid's capture, etc.)

The "system" is obviously broken, yet the Attorney General has the idiocy to say "it's working"

When ordinary citizens are prevented from defending themselves (Fort Hood attack by Islamic terrorist on unarmed soldiers) tragedy ensues.

Take the message to all the liberal nitiwts that attacks are the direct result of appearing weak.

if passengers were offered the choice of brass knuckles, a 6" sheath knife and a taser, how many successful hijackings do you think would occur?

(i would say pistol, but I don't want a bullet dicking up the expensive transport system.)

[wa3ra]

Don't give me a taser, Bro...I always get the dickhead in a seat near mine, and I'd be too tempted to use it.


Oh, and I'm all for stripping good-looking women!

[JIDinPhilly]

Some guy I was listening to on the radio yesterday made a good point. Basically we're trying to fight the newest threat. A guy tries to slip explosives in his shoes, we start frantically checking shoes. Then someone will try sneaking a bomb in through his eyeglasses, so we'll be checking everyone's eyeglasses. Then it'll be through tampons. Who knows. Point is criminals will always adapt to what authority is doing, so authority has to check for everything. Then the problem arises of how long this will take. Will everyone who wants to fly somewhere have to spend a night at the airport because it takes so long to search everyone/everything? Where do we compromise?

I have no doubt that flying will never be 100% safe no matter what we do. Where will the next threat come from? When will they stop trying to board airplanes and infiltrate from the inside (i.e. become pilots, crew members, baggage handlers, etc.)? This ideology is patient; they will have no problem waiting 20 years to concoct the perfect plan.

Best we can hope for is being super vigilant and, if that fails, hope there are brave people aboard a plane to thwart any gutless attempt of terrorism.

Yup. Reactive not proactive. I could never understand why the government is in charge of a private industry. You pay people $10 an hour to check people for explosives, you're gonna get $10 an hour of quality. The airlines should have a private security force.

[PocketProtector]

Yup. Reactive not proactive. I could never understand why the government is in charge of a private industry. You pay people $10 an hour to check people for explosives, you're gonna get $10 an hour of quality. The airlines should have a private security force.

Average .Gov employee---$72K

Private ------------------$42k.

Makes sense right?

Ehhh..sorry my numbers are a little skewed.....Here from CBS NEWS:

It's A Good Time To Work For Uncle Sam

Posted by Declan McCullagh



President Obama's call last year for "shared sacrifice" doesn't extend to federal employees, at least based on the details of his administration's 2010 budget released this week.

At a time when the official unemployment rate is nearing double digits, and 6.35 million people are receiving unemployment benefits, the U.S. government is on a hiring binge.

Executive branch employment — 1.98 million in 2009, excluding the Postal Service and the Defense Department — is set to increase by 15.6 percent for the 2010 fiscal year. Most of that is thanks to the Census Bureau hiring 102,000 temporary workers, but not counting them still yields a net increase of 2 percent in one year.

There's little belt-tightening in evidence in Washington, D.C.: Counting benefits, the average pay per federal worker will leap from $72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 next year.

Meanwhile, according to Forbes' layoff tracker, there have been 558,087 layoffs since November 2008 at large public companies; even local school districts aren't immune. That's just a sliver of the total unemployed, which government data estimate to be 8.6 percent of the workforce, or an alternate method of reckoning that counts discouraged workers puts at 20 percent.

Some of the Feds' hiring increases have been stunning. If you look at the four-year period from 2006 to 2010, the number of Homeland Security employees has grown by 22 percent, the Justice Department has increased by 15 percent, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can claim 25 percent more employees. (These figures assume that Congress adopts Mr. Obama's 2010 budget without significant changes.)

A 39-page "dimensions" document accompanying the White House's 1,380-page appendix offers justifications for each new hire. Homeland Security says its new employees will "increase border security." The Agency for International Development wants to improve "the management and stewardship of foreign assistance programs." The Smithsonian Institution wants "additional security guards." And so on.

The final evidence that it's a good time to have a .gov e-mail address? Civilian government employees are set to enjoy a 2 percent raise. Not only are private sector workers are struggling to keep their jobs, but their earnings are stagnating and pay cuts are no longer uncommon.