Screwdrivered Security (a little long)

[Judah]

OK... So I flew home from Tom Ridge airport in Erie, PA today.

I couldn't fly myself there because of weather (freezing rain, snow, ice
and such), so I took the bus (Airbus, that is)...

Anyway, flying out from LGA everything was smooth as silk. I fly
commercially enough to know the routine and generally avoid beeping and
getting wanded because I forgot to take off my watch, etc.

Now I fly commercially on average once or twice a month (especially in
the winter). I carry two spare car keys in my wallet, which never goes on
the belt, and never go off. I have had this shirt-pocket-pen-style
computer screwdriver that I have had in my laptop bag for about 2 years.
I never take off my sneakers because there is no significant metal in
them, actually I didn't think there was any at all.

Until today...


On my flight home today, tho, I experienced the Tom Ridge treatment...
First of all, I beeped. I didn't actually hear the beep. Apparently it
would be a security breach to hear the beep go off.

So as the guy directs me to the wanding booth, my laptop bag is being
attacked and held up by two TSA agents. Of course, at the same time, the
third security agent is taking my laptop, my coat, and my other bag, and
shuffling them down to the end of the line for anyone to help themselves
to.

Immediately, I request the Wander to ask the Shuffler to give my laptop
and my other stuff to the Holder Upper to keep securely together while I
am getting wanded. Fortunately, they were willing to comply.

So the guy wands me for like 10 minutes. First, he somehow finds metal in
my sneakers. Not in the sole, but on the top. Now these sneakers are the
velcro-type - they don't even have laces, or metal grommets for laces. So
I have no idea where the metal is.

So he takes my shoes off, throws them in a box, and passes them off to
Mr. Shuffler for XRays.

Next, he wands every inch of my body. Quite thoroughly, I might add.
Several times, he had to adjust the position of my arms and legs to
ensure he properly hit all the crevices. Every single grommet and stud in
my pants pocket was thoroughly examined, as was the belt buckle, and my
zipper! It was quite interesting, although would have been much more
enjoyable if I had gotten Ms. Wander instead!

So now we go over to Mr. Holder Upper with my stuff. Now I happened to
have some computer connector wire assemblies that are fairly non-
standard. You might be able to buy them at Radio Shack, but the average
non-geek probably wouldn't even know what it was. So I figured that's
what the problem was, and started directing him toward them. He says,
"no, that's not it." Instead, he pulls out my little, narrow, pocket-pen-
style screwdriver, and shows it to his supervisor.


Then he takes the bag and runs it through the XRay again. At this point,
Mr. Supervisor explains to me that the airport has a policy prohibiting
passengers from carrying tools on the plane. I explain to him that I am
going home, and that the screwdriver has been flying with me for several
years now, and I have had no trouble with it at other airports. I did
have trouble with a crimping tool once, and they told me at that point
that there was a size limitation.

Bear in mind, of course, I have the computer connectors in my bag (wires
and such), I have my toiletry bag which has a couple of bic disposable
razors, and my fingernails haven't been cut in a couple of days.

But somehow, this teeny, precision slotted computer screwdriver is
considered a risk. At the end of the day, I didn't think I would have
time to go back and check it and then get wanded again and still make the
flight. And mailing was not offered as an option. So I told him to keep
it, but I got dibs on anything else they find in my bag.

This is just ridiculous already. Do they think that a terrorist's photo
ID won't match their ticket? Are they afraid that I might unscrew the
seatbelt during taxi, takeoff, or landing?

Or have we become a country of bumbling, cowering, idiots?

"For the land of naive, and the home of afraid..." ?

[C J Campbell]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
|
| Or have we become a country of bumbling, cowering, idiots?

Bingo.

[Larry Fransson]

On 2004-02-05 21:59:41 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> said:

> | Or have we become a country of bumbling, cowering, idiots?
>
> Bingo.

He stole my line!

--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA
E-mail address changes regularly to thwart spam.

[Cecil E. Chapman]

> This is just ridiculous already. Do they think that a terrorist's photo
> ID won't match their ticket? Are they afraid that I might unscrew the
> seatbelt during taxi, takeoff, or landing?
>
> Or have we become a country of bumbling, cowering, idiots?

'Enjoyed' your account..... your last sentence hit the issue of the
absurdity of it all right on the head..

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security
will deserve neither and lose both. "

-Benjamin Franklin-

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures complete with pictures and text at:
www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> OK... So I flew home from Tom Ridge airport in Erie, PA today.
>
> I couldn't fly myself there because of weather (freezing rain, snow, ice
> and such), so I took the bus (Airbus, that is)...
>
> Anyway, flying out from LGA everything was smooth as silk. I fly
> commercially enough to know the routine and generally avoid beeping and
> getting wanded because I forgot to take off my watch, etc.
>
> Now I fly commercially on average once or twice a month (especially in
> the winter). I carry two spare car keys in my wallet, which never goes on
> the belt, and never go off. I have had this shirt-pocket-pen-style
> computer screwdriver that I have had in my laptop bag for about 2 years.
> I never take off my sneakers because there is no significant metal in
> them, actually I didn't think there was any at all.
>
> Until today...
>
>
> On my flight home today, tho, I experienced the Tom Ridge treatment...
> First of all, I beeped. I didn't actually hear the beep. Apparently it
> would be a security breach to hear the beep go off.
>
> So as the guy directs me to the wanding booth, my laptop bag is being
> attacked and held up by two TSA agents. Of course, at the same time, the
> third security agent is taking my laptop, my coat, and my other bag, and
> shuffling them down to the end of the line for anyone to help themselves
> to.
>
> Immediately, I request the Wander to ask the Shuffler to give my laptop
> and my other stuff to the Holder Upper to keep securely together while I
> am getting wanded. Fortunately, they were willing to comply.
>
> So the guy wands me for like 10 minutes. First, he somehow finds metal in
> my sneakers. Not in the sole, but on the top. Now these sneakers are the
> velcro-type - they don't even have laces, or metal grommets for laces. So
> I have no idea where the metal is.
>
> So he takes my shoes off, throws them in a box, and passes them off to
> Mr. Shuffler for XRays.
>
> Next, he wands every inch of my body. Quite thoroughly, I might add.
> Several times, he had to adjust the position of my arms and legs to
> ensure he properly hit all the crevices. Every single grommet and stud in
> my pants pocket was thoroughly examined, as was the belt buckle, and my
> zipper! It was quite interesting, although would have been much more
> enjoyable if I had gotten Ms. Wander instead!
>
> So now we go over to Mr. Holder Upper with my stuff. Now I happened to
> have some computer connector wire assemblies that are fairly non-
> standard. You might be able to buy them at Radio Shack, but the average
> non-geek probably wouldn't even know what it was. So I figured that's
> what the problem was, and started directing him toward them. He says,
> "no, that's not it." Instead, he pulls out my little, narrow, pocket-pen-
> style screwdriver, and shows it to his supervisor.
>
>
> Then he takes the bag and runs it through the XRay again. At this point,
> Mr. Supervisor explains to me that the airport has a policy prohibiting
> passengers from carrying tools on the plane. I explain to him that I am
> going home, and that the screwdriver has been flying with me for several
> years now, and I have had no trouble with it at other airports. I did
> have trouble with a crimping tool once, and they told me at that point
> that there was a size limitation.
>
> Bear in mind, of course, I have the computer connectors in my bag (wires
> and such), I have my toiletry bag which has a couple of bic disposable
> razors, and my fingernails haven't been cut in a couple of days.
>
> But somehow, this teeny, precision slotted computer screwdriver is
> considered a risk. At the end of the day, I didn't think I would have
> time to go back and check it and then get wanded again and still make the
> flight. And mailing was not offered as an option. So I told him to keep
> it, but I got dibs on anything else they find in my bag.
>

>
> "For the land of naive, and the home of afraid..." ?

[Nathan Young]

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:29:51 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>OK... So I flew home from Tom Ridge airport in Erie, PA today.
>
>I couldn't fly myself there because of weather (freezing rain, snow, ice
>and such), so I took the bus (Airbus, that is)...
>
>Anyway, flying out from LGA everything was smooth as silk. I fly
>commercially enough to know the routine and generally avoid beeping and
>getting wanded because I forgot to take off my watch, etc.
>
>Now I fly commercially on average once or twice a month (especially in
>the winter). I carry two spare car keys in my wallet, which never goes on
>the belt, and never go off. I have had this shirt-pocket-pen-style
>computer screwdriver that I have had in my laptop bag for about 2 years.
>I never take off my sneakers because there is no significant metal in
>them, actually I didn't think there was any at all.
>
>Until today...
>
>
>On my flight home today, tho, I experienced the Tom Ridge treatment...
>First of all, I beeped. I didn't actually hear the beep. Apparently it
>would be a security breach to hear the beep go off.
>
>So as the guy directs me to the wanding booth, my laptop bag is being
>attacked and held up by two TSA agents. Of course, at the same time, the
>third security agent is taking my laptop, my coat, and my other bag, and
>shuffling them down to the end of the line for anyone to help themselves
>to.
>
>Immediately, I request the Wander to ask the Shuffler to give my laptop
>and my other stuff to the Holder Upper to keep securely together while I
>am getting wanded. Fortunately, they were willing to comply.
>
>So the guy wands me for like 10 minutes. First, he somehow finds metal in
>my sneakers. Not in the sole, but on the top. Now these sneakers are the
>velcro-type - they don't even have laces, or metal grommets for laces. So
>I have no idea where the metal is.
>
>So he takes my shoes off, throws them in a box, and passes them off to
>Mr. Shuffler for XRays.
>
>Next, he wands every inch of my body. Quite thoroughly, I might add.
>Several times, he had to adjust the position of my arms and legs to
>ensure he properly hit all the crevices. Every single grommet and stud in
>my pants pocket was thoroughly examined, as was the belt buckle, and my
>zipper! It was quite interesting, although would have been much more
>enjoyable if I had gotten Ms. Wander instead!
>
>So now we go over to Mr. Holder Upper with my stuff. Now I happened to
>have some computer connector wire assemblies that are fairly non-
>standard. You might be able to buy them at Radio Shack, but the average
>non-geek probably wouldn't even know what it was. So I figured that's
>what the problem was, and started directing him toward them. He says,
>"no, that's not it." Instead, he pulls out my little, narrow, pocket-pen-
>style screwdriver, and shows it to his supervisor.
>
>
>Then he takes the bag and runs it through the XRay again. At this point,
>Mr. Supervisor explains to me that the airport has a policy prohibiting
>passengers from carrying tools on the plane. I explain to him that I am
>going home, and that the screwdriver has been flying with me for several
>years now, and I have had no trouble with it at other airports. I did
>have trouble with a crimping tool once, and they told me at that point
>that there was a size limitation.
>
>Bear in mind, of course, I have the computer connectors in my bag (wires
>and such), I have my toiletry bag which has a couple of bic disposable
>razors, and my fingernails haven't been cut in a couple of days.
>
>But somehow, this teeny, precision slotted computer screwdriver is
>considered a risk. At the end of the day, I didn't think I would have
>time to go back and check it and then get wanded again and still make the
>flight. And mailing was not offered as an option. So I told him to keep
>it, but I got dibs on anything else they find in my bag.
>
>This is just ridiculous already. Do they think that a terrorist's photo
>ID won't match their ticket? Are they afraid that I might unscrew the
>seatbelt during taxi, takeoff, or landing?
>
>Or have we become a country of bumbling, cowering, idiots?
>
>"For the land of naive, and the home of afraid..." ?

It is irritating that there isn't an option to mail your stuff back
home at the airport. It is so easy to be in a rush on the way to the
airport and to forget to take something out of your pockets or laptop
bag. At ORD, they are collecting 100s if not 1000s of items a day
from passengers. Wonder what happens to them? Maybe the TSA workers
get a nice pocketknife collection.

-Nathan

[Cecil E. Chapman]

Tell ya what...... get 'in the know' about the lack of thorough screening of
the people who service the plane in the 'catering trucks' (airplane meals,
et al) - those that actually have access to ALL the plane and then come back
and tell me again how you don't see the 'procedures' as so much window
dressing... which is what all this nonsense is. Think of Israel, with all
their anti-terrorist efforts over MANY years,,, you can't go a week without
hearing how some terrorist has blown him/herself up in a public market, or
with a truck loaded with explosives. And Israel's anti-terrorist methods
have been in place and honed over countless decades. ..... And that
conscientious objector who got those illegal items on the plane to make a
point (and he had it done multiple times AND he even wrote the govt. to let
them know when and where it was going to be done,,,, in advance). I think
he should have received a medal for trying to show us that the 'security
procedures' were only so much fluff and riddled with holes.

Don't even get me started on the absurdity AND constitutional violation of
TSA's pilot certificate revocation power - Let me get this right.... they
can TAKE your hard earned 'ticket' without telling you why,,, AND your only
recourse is an appeal to the original agency that made the accusation (no
third party),,, and you don't even know what you are defending yourself
against? Furthermore,,,, let me get this right, too......... You have a
terrorist who has a pilot's certificate and you take away his/her
certificate - do the 'powers that be' REALLY think that the terrorist is
really gonna say "Gee,,, I was going to commit a despicable act with a
plane, but if I were to fly, now, withOUT my certificate, THAT would be
illegal.... and golly, gosh, willikers,,,,, I wouldn't want to break the
law" Give me a break,,, window dressing and cotton candy passed as
substantive action... The truth is,,,, short of locking every person in
their house with a plethora of guards outside every house there is no
measure of security that is going to do very much.


--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures complete with pictures and text at:
www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

> >

[Doug Carter]

On 2004-02-06, Jeffrey Voight > wrote:
> Just to advocate on behalf of the devil for a second--
>
Some wag pointed out (on a net for this kind of topic) that
a far more effective security measure would be to pass out
large knives to all passangers :)

....but, since TSA is unlikely to adopt that practice I'll
continue to check my bags and pockets. Even in and out of
DCA and IAD the only delays I encounter is caused by newbie
travlers arguing with security over screwdrivers, pen knives
and other stuff that's been on the nightly news for two
years.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Judah wrote:
>
> Or have we become a country of bumbling, cowering, idiots?

No, the people who are running the show are, so they think the rest of us are too.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Judah]

I have flown back and forth to Israel on El-Al many times since I was in
the 1st grade - quite regularly while I was a teenager. Admittedly, I
haven't been back since before 9/11, but as rude as El Al people are
(especially the Flight Attendants), I am quite sure that they don't
confiscate pen-screwdrivers from their customers in the name of security.

And I also can tell you that we were poked fun at their security questions
from a very early age. ("Did you pack your own bags? Are you carrying any
bombs? Are you a good witch or a bad witch?")

I have flown through many airports since 9/11. I have been wanded two or
three times, and have not complained (much). I do believe there is
potential benefit (though not a failsafe) to check ID once, to scan people
for weapons. and to make sure that the people who get on the plane match
the bags that get on the plane (although even that may matter less now that
every bag gets X-Rayed). I don't complain that the TSA uses unpublished
blacklists for flagging passengers who require additional security
attention (El Al has been known to do this for a very long time, and I
believe the airlines have done this since before 9/11). In fact, I believe
airlines would be well served to cooperate in researching passengers before
they get on their planes.

I am not upset that the screwdriver was found, or even identified. That's
not the problem.

The problem is that they claim to be protecting the public, but basically
the process itself, at least in this case, was exactly the opposite. While
they were "protecting" me, they left my laptop exposed, sitting at the end
of the counter for anyone to stuff in their bag and take as their own.
While they were "protecting" me, they stole my favorite pocket screwdriver
and left me no options for keeping it except missing my plane and staying
another night in Erie or Pittsburgh. Their "high security" environment
protects Tom Ridge very nicely, since it's his name on the airport. But
quite frankly, they have taken the process too far and left gaping holes in
their own system.

Airport security is federally regulated, but apparently each airport has
its own rules. (As another example, LGA still requires you to show your ID
again upon boarding. Even the gate agent was making wisecracks about this
"security policy".)

I'm not advocating that we shouldn't have any security at airports
(although busses and trains seem to do OK without it). But when all of
this happened, I had flashes of Bernie Geotz dressed as a pilot wielding
his loaded pair of tweezers.


Jeffrey Voight > wrote in news:_JMUb.14939$EH5.1447
@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

> Just to advocate on behalf of the devil for a second--
>
> Isn't it more likely that we're upset that we can't be so cavalier in
> our security procedures? I happen to be a big fan of laziness (Hard
> work has a future payoff. Lazy pays of right now.). I like being able
> to breeze through airport security. That seems to have been taken away
> from me. I like being able to take my leisure in getting to the
> airport. That's been taken away as well.
>
> I recently got to fly into and out of Tel Aviv. I got to pass through
> El Al security both ways. At no time did I think to myself, "Wow, this
> is a lot of security. These people must really be cowardly idiots."
>
> I did, however, think to myself, "Wow, this is a lot of security. I
> hope nobody figures out how to sneak a Palestinian/Iraqi/Anybody else
> that hates the Israelis bomb on board."
>
> It seems to me that it's a case of what-changed-itis. In Israel,
> nothing's changed. We don't suspect El Al of encouraging cowardace. In
> the U.S., we had a dramatic recent change. Suddenly, we suspect us of
> severe cowardace.
>
> And, to look at some of the other places from which I've flown, I've
> seen some pretty lazy security and, I haven't always felt safe. Knowing
> that one can purchase a quick ride through security in Moscow didn't
> make me feel any better about the fact that I had just purchased a quick
> ride through security considering that I didn't really have much money
> on me, nor was I carrying anything remotely dangerous. It didn't seem
> to matter to our friendly panhandlers in uniform. I had money and for
> that money, they would turn a blind-eye to my baggage. Without my
> money, we were going to be in for a long wait. Who had what in their
> baggage and had enough money to purchase their way through behind me?
>
> The lessor of two evils may very well be to allow the occasional attack
> on U.S. soil. A couple of thousand dead every few years really doesn't
> compare to how many die from smoking or car accidents especially when
> held up against my desire to board the aircraft with my nail clippers.
>
> Jeff...
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>> "Judah" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> |
>> | Or have we become a country of bumbling, cowering, idiots?
>>
>> Bingo.
>>
>>

[Robert Briggs]

Nathan Young wrote:
> Judah wrote:

> > Or have we become a country of bumbling, cowering, idiots?

It seems so.

> > "For the land of naive, and the home of afraid..." ?

So chips are "naivety fries" now, eh?

> It is irritating that there isn't an option to mail your stuff back
> home at the airport. It is so easy to be in a rush on the way to the
> airport and to forget to take something out of your pockets or laptop
> bag. At ORD, they are collecting 100s if not 1000s of items a day
> from passengers. Wonder what happens to them? Maybe the TSA workers
> get a nice pocketknife collection.

There's one obvious solution to this stupidity for items which are
permissible in hold baggage: check the passenger and *all* his baggage
in one go and allow him to transfer items between his cabin and hold
bags.

[Big John]

Judah

Just came home from Xmas at my daughters in FL. Forgot and left my
'little' pocket knife in my pocket (I was in a wheel chair). Said I
could mail if I went back out to someplace but being pushed in wheel
chair and going through the checkpoint again, I just said keep it. He
threw it to one of his friends and said here is a nice knife for you.

Next time if I get caught I'm just going to break the blades off the
knife and take home. No freebee for the checkers :o(.

They let me take my ball point pens of course which I have demostrated
to Ridge and company that they are dangerous instrumenets and will
kill someone.

In one word (pardon me ladies) CRAP.

Big John


On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:29:51 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>OK... So I flew home from Tom Ridge airport in Erie, PA today.
>
>I couldn't fly myself there because of weather (freezing rain, snow, ice
>and such), so I took the bus (Airbus, that is)...
>
>Anyway, flying out from LGA everything was smooth as silk. I fly
>commercially enough to know the routine and generally avoid beeping and
>getting wanded because I forgot to take off my watch, etc.
>
>Now I fly commercially on average once or twice a month (especially in
>the winter). I carry two spare car keys in my wallet, which never goes on
>the belt, and never go off. I have had this shirt-pocket-pen-style
>computer screwdriver that I have had in my laptop bag for about 2 years.
>I never take off my sneakers because there is no significant metal in
>them, actually I didn't think there was any at all.
>
>Until today...
>
>
>On my flight home today, tho, I experienced the Tom Ridge treatment...
>First of all, I beeped. I didn't actually hear the beep. Apparently it
>would be a security breach to hear the beep go off.
>
>So as the guy directs me to the wanding booth, my laptop bag is being
>attacked and held up by two TSA agents. Of course, at the same time, the
>third security agent is taking my laptop, my coat, and my other bag, and
>shuffling them down to the end of the line for anyone to help themselves
>to.
>
>Immediately, I request the Wander to ask the Shuffler to give my laptop
>and my other stuff to the Holder Upper to keep securely together while I
>am getting wanded. Fortunately, they were willing to comply.
>
>So the guy wands me for like 10 minutes. First, he somehow finds metal in
>my sneakers. Not in the sole, but on the top. Now these sneakers are the
>velcro-type - they don't even have laces, or metal grommets for laces. So
>I have no idea where the metal is.
>
>So he takes my shoes off, throws them in a box, and passes them off to
>Mr. Shuffler for XRays.
>
>Next, he wands every inch of my body. Quite thoroughly, I might add.
>Several times, he had to adjust the position of my arms and legs to
>ensure he properly hit all the crevices. Every single grommet and stud in
>my pants pocket was thoroughly examined, as was the belt buckle, and my
>zipper! It was quite interesting, although would have been much more
>enjoyable if I had gotten Ms. Wander instead!
>
>So now we go over to Mr. Holder Upper with my stuff. Now I happened to
>have some computer connector wire assemblies that are fairly non-
>standard. You might be able to buy them at Radio Shack, but the average
>non-geek probably wouldn't even know what it was. So I figured that's
>what the problem was, and started directing him toward them. He says,
>"no, that's not it." Instead, he pulls out my little, narrow, pocket-pen-
>style screwdriver, and shows it to his supervisor.
>
>
>Then he takes the bag and runs it through the XRay again. At this point,
>Mr. Supervisor explains to me that the airport has a policy prohibiting
>passengers from carrying tools on the plane. I explain to him that I am
>going home, and that the screwdriver has been flying with me for several
>years now, and I have had no trouble with it at other airports. I did
>have trouble with a crimping tool once, and they told me at that point
>that there was a size limitation.
>
>Bear in mind, of course, I have the computer connectors in my bag (wires
>and such), I have my toiletry bag which has a couple of bic disposable
>razors, and my fingernails haven't been cut in a couple of days.
>
>But somehow, this teeny, precision slotted computer screwdriver is
>considered a risk. At the end of the day, I didn't think I would have
>time to go back and check it and then get wanded again and still make the
>flight. And mailing was not offered as an option. So I told him to keep
>it, but I got dibs on anything else they find in my bag.
>
>This is just ridiculous already. Do they think that a terrorist's photo
>ID won't match their ticket? Are they afraid that I might unscrew the
>seatbelt during taxi, takeoff, or landing?
>
>Or have we become a country of bumbling, cowering, idiots?
>
>"For the land of naive, and the home of afraid..." ?

[Judah]

Big John > wrote in
:

<snip>

> They let me take my ball point pens of course which I have demostrated
> to Ridge and company that they are dangerous instrumenets and will
> kill someone.

Geez! I'm surprised they still let people take these things on!!!

[Judah]

Well, that's one of the reasons why I was glad I got my PPL (although I
started before 9/11, so it wasn't on my agenda when I started)... But I had
already cancelled my visit to this customer twice to avoid weather and
commercial flying, and couldn't delay it a third time...

With any luck, as my biz grows, I will be able to afford a nice twin and
stop flying airlines altogether!



Nomen Nescio ]> wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Judah >
>
> <snip>
>>This is just ridiculous already. Do they think that a terrorist's photo
>>ID won't match their ticket? Are they afraid that I might unscrew the
>>seatbelt during taxi, takeoff, or landing?
> <snip>
>
> Sad story, indeed!
> The pathetic thing is that they are trying to prevent another 9/11
> incident when
> another 9/11 incident will never occur. People learned that the concept
> of being passive in a hijacking can get you killed. If you'd pulled out
> that screwdriver and headed for the cockpit, I'd bet you wouldn't get
> 25 feet.
>
>>Or have we become a country of bumbling, cowering, idiots?
>
> No, our leaders are a bunch of "bumbling, cowering, idiots". Catering
> to the pathetic morons that feel that "If it saves one human life" it
> should be done at all costs.
>
> If more people refused to fly commercial, things would have to change.
> So
> I guess you and the other passengers are also to blame for that BS.
> Maybe you should take the bus next time.
> I used to fly commercial a half dozen times a year. I haven't been on
> an airline
> once since 9/11. Yea, it's been inconvenient, sometimes. But I will not
> live life as a sheep.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQCVAwUBQCQYkpMoscYxZNI5AQFn8AP/RRWwB+F1PxByVnBx74EVtPaYjr8lOV2U
> j2Y9gJHaBlBuzkw0iBD8Gm7Itf4JkJ7O6erNi/K+ZMHBthDhDCobVSQl1K+TEOXi
> /hL3LrLDaKBJbMyg6TEy/5hApmDcR65/g3KO6KuZtT/9klfOywD/F3HJMK9uvrf4
> T7L3+xpMczs=
> =90Mt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>

[Big John]

Judah

I also have demonstrated my ability to sharpen the edge of a credit
card and slice an orange in two. Could do the same thing to a neck. If
I have my way they will be confiscating your credit cards next as
dangerous weapons.

If I hadn't gotten a pace maker and now have neuropathy (sp) (dead
nerves in feet and legs) I'd still have my turbo Mooney and fly myself
and to hell with Ridge and company.

It's hell to wear out and have to fly with the great unwashed masses.

Big John

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:30:40 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>Big John > wrote in
:
>
><snip>
>
>> They let me take my ball point pens of course which I have demostrated
>> to Ridge and company that they are dangerous instrumenets and will
>> kill someone.
>
>Geez! I'm surprised they still let people take these things on!!!
>

[Snowbird]

Jeffrey Voight > wrote in message >...
> Just to advocate on behalf of the devil for a second--

> Isn't it more likely that we're upset that we can't be so cavalier in
> our security procedures? <...>
> I recently got to fly into and out of Tel Aviv. I got to pass through
> El Al security both ways. At no time did I think to myself, "Wow, this
> is a lot of security. These people must really be cowardly idiots."

I've never flown El Al although a number of people I know have.
From what they tell me, I would say El Al security is efficient,
focused, and direct.

I don't think the difference is "we can't be so cavalier in our
security procedures".

I think the difference is, our "new improved" security procedures
are largely "blowing snow" which is focused on making people
*believe* that we are doing something. That is the impression
we get when they are confiscating needles from sewing kits (happened
to my boss) and screwdriver pens but apparently knives, guns, ammo,
and boxcutters still make it through on a regular basis. Then
there's the issue of how well the ground support crews are screened
(um...)

I myself wouldn't mind standing in line longer, if I felt truly
effective procedures were being implemented.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

Big John > wrote in message >...
> Next time if I get caught I'm just going to break the blades off the
> knife and take home. No freebee for the checkers :o(.

I tell ya Big John if I forget to clean out my purse before
I fly commercial I'll be joining Michael on the list of
suspicious characters. Two knives, leatherman tool, two
inhalers, meds removed from their original container....
and that's not even considering my laptop bag.

> They let me take my ball point pens of course which I have demostrated
> to Ridge and company that they are dangerous instrumenets and will
> kill someone.

One of my coworkers is a 'nam vet he points out his shoelaces
are deadly weapons which he was trained to use by the US gov'mt

> In one word (pardon me ladies) CRAP.

Le mot juste

Sydney

[Judah]

What happens when you tell them that you can do this with your Photo ID?


Big John > wrote in
:

> Judah
>
> I also have demonstrated my ability to sharpen the edge of a credit
> card and slice an orange in two. Could do the same thing to a neck. If
> I have my way they will be confiscating your credit cards next as
> dangerous weapons.
>
> If I hadn't gotten a pace maker and now have neuropathy (sp) (dead
> nerves in feet and legs) I'd still have my turbo Mooney and fly myself
> and to hell with Ridge and company.
>
> It's hell to wear out and have to fly with the great unwashed masses.
>
> Big John
>
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:30:40 GMT, Judah > wrote:
>
>>Big John > wrote in
:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> They let me take my ball point pens of course which I have
>>> demostrated to Ridge and company that they are dangerous instrumenets
>>> and will kill someone.
>>
>>Geez! I'm surprised they still let people take these things on!!!
>>

[Doug Carter]

On 2004-02-07, Judah > wrote:
> What happens when you tell them that you can do this with your Photo ID?
>
> Big John > wrote in
> :
>
>> Judah
>>
>> I also have demonstrated my ability to sharpen the edge of a credit
>> card and slice an orange in two. Could do the same thing to a neck.

Lets see, one terrorist with a sharp photo ID, another with a sharp
credit card and 200 crazed passengers with laptops? I'm not worried,
that cat is out of the bag.

Hopefully the hyper-focus on the occasional mild inconvenience at the
airport won't keep us from noticing the unmarked white truck in the
basement parking garage...

[Big John]

Sydney

It's stupid what we all have to go through with to fly.

1. Make the cockpit invulnerable.

2.. Prevent any explosive from getting into the cabin or baggage.

Anything else the passengers can take care of.

Have stewardesses run through a routine on terrorists in cabin prior
to each takeoff like they do with the rest of the emergency
procedures.

Also teach the Pilots to zoom and dive the aircraft to prevent
terrorists from being able to do any coordinated things in cabin.

Put three pilots in all cockpits so any two could overpower any
individual Pilot who went nuts.

Just wish I was in charge of air travel. Sure would be easier and
safer.

Big John


On 6 Feb 2004 22:04:35 -0800, (Snowbird)
wrote:

>Big John > wrote in message >...
>> Next time if I get caught I'm just going to break the blades off the
>> knife and take home. No freebee for the checkers :o(.
>
>I tell ya Big John if I forget to clean out my purse before
>I fly commercial I'll be joining Michael on the list of
>suspicious characters. Two knives, leatherman tool, two
>inhalers, meds removed from their original container....
>and that's not even considering my laptop bag.
>
>> They let me take my ball point pens of course which I have demostrated
>> to Ridge and company that they are dangerous instrumenets and will
>> kill someone.
>
>One of my coworkers is a 'nam vet he points out his shoelaces
>are deadly weapons which he was trained to use by the US gov'mt
>
>> In one word (pardon me ladies) CRAP.
>
>Le mot juste
>
>Sydney

[Morgans]

"Big John" > wrote
>
> Have stewardesses run through a routine on terrorists in cabin prior
> to each takeoff like they do with the rest of the emergency
> procedures.

>
> Big John
>
Hmmmm.

I flew a couple weeks ago, and Continental has no such announced terrorist
routine.

Or was that hypothetical?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/04

[Doug Carter]

On 2004-02-08, Jeffrey Voight > wrote:
> There are those that would tell you that the solution to terrorism isn't
> to treat the symptoms (shoebombers and boxcutters) but to treat the
> disease itself. Rather than harden the cabin and examine every bag,
> they would tell you, we should change our foreign policy in order to
> stop being such a target.

Easy! Convert to Islam and put our army under Osama the would be Caliph!

Gee, why didn't I think of that?

[Snowbird]

"Morgans" > wrote in message >...
> "Big John" > wrote
> > Have stewardesses run through a routine on terrorists in cabin prior
> > to each takeoff like they do with the rest of the emergency
> > procedures.

> Hmmmm.

> I flew a couple weeks ago, and Continental has no such announced terrorist
> routine.

Yes, that was 'BJ's' point

> Or was that hypothetical?

Yes, hypothetical, but IMO BJ is absolutely right. The only
flaw in the 'terrorist-proof cockpit door' suggestion is the
Egyptair scenario: how do you defense against a pilot who
goes berserk, if there are two? "Have three" solves the problem
but at an added expense for personnel the airlines would never
go for.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Martin Hotze]

On 8 Feb 2004 14:41:05 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:
>> There are those that would tell you that the solution to terrorism isn't
>> to treat the symptoms (shoebombers and boxcutters) but to treat the
>> disease itself. Rather than harden the cabin and examine every bag,
>> they would tell you, we should change our foreign policy in order to
>> stop being such a target.
>
>Easy! Convert to Islam and put our army under Osama the would be Caliph!
>
>Gee, why didn't I think of that?

Because you can only paint black and white.

#m

--
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990509

[Doug Carter]

On 2004-02-08, Martin Hotze > wrote:
>>> ... we should change our foreign policy in order to
>>> stop being such a target.
>>
>>Easy! Convert to Islam and put our army under Osama the would be Caliph!
>>Gee, why didn't I think of that?
>
> Because you can only paint black and white.

For an exercise in thinking in shades of gray try "Jihad Against Jews
and Crusaders" World Islamic Front Statement, 23 February 1998.

[Nathan Young]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:53:27 -0500, Tom Fleischman
> wrote:

>In article >, Nathan Young
> wrote:
>
>
>> It is irritating that there isn't an option to mail your stuff back
>> home at the airport. It is so easy to be in a rush on the way to the
>> airport and to forget to take something out of your pockets or laptop
>> bag. At ORD, they are collecting 100s if not 1000s of items a day
>> from passengers. Wonder what happens to them? Maybe the TSA workers
>> get a nice pocketknife collection.
>
>Along with my nice digital camera which was stolen out of my checked
>luggage on a flight from LAX to EWR last year. I didn't even mind
>losing the camera that much, but losing the priceless photos it
>contained really burned me. It had to taken by either the TSA or by
>the airline baggage handlers. I suspect the TSA because it had to have
>shown up on the xray. They won't let you lock your luggage, and there
>is no way to prove that anything has been stolen. That's the last time
>I put anything of value in a checked bag. From now on I will FedEx
>anything of value ahead before I leave.

Man - that really sucks. Sorry to hear it.

-Nathan

[Judah]

There's a problem with your theory.

As a nation of power, we will always have enemies. We had enemies before
9/11. Not all of our enemies care about our alliance with Israel, or any
other foriegn policy. Some of the enemies were born in this country. As
soon as we express a policy position, whether it is generally popular or
not, it is likely that someone will have an opposing position. And if they
are passionate enough, they will fight to the death to protect their
position.

Frankly, I think that the most practical alternative is to accept the fact
that some innocent people will be killed by terrorists every year, just as
some innocent people are killed by car accidents, and random gang
shootings, and cancer, and a thousand other things. It's an unfortunate,
harsh reality.

That's not to say that we eliminate all security. But the reality is that
by making a spectacle of all of the terrorism, by eliminating freedoms of
our people to create the facade of security, we only serve to fuel their
fire, and show them that they do have power and control - that their terror
attacks work.

Quite frankly, I think a better response by the US would have been an
increase in support for Israel as a result of the terrorist attacks, and a
demand that our allies take a stand as well - either with us or against us.
I don't say this because I am an Israel supporter myself (which I am). I
say this because of the reality of the situation - the "Islamic" Terrorist
Organizations currently hide in the forest of the Arab Nations and use
thier size and mobility to evade us. We cannot fight them effectively
because they are amorphous - they do not have their own national identity,
but the nations that support them and allow them to live and organize and
train and plan in their lands put on a front of being our allies. For
example, it is well known that the Islamic Jihad, responsible for many
terrorist activities in many lands, is based in Egypt - supposedly an ally
of both the US and Israel.

If the Arab Nations were pressured to take a stand, they would either
support the US or support the Terrorist Groups. It might lead to a war,
maybe even a World War, but it would be a war that was fought by nations
using war type tactics. Instead, we are left digging in caves for
terrorists that aren't even there. While I'm not very much of a Bush fan
overall, I think Bush was close to the mark when he demanded that the other
nations cut terrorist funding, and demanded Saudi Arabia turn over its
terrorists and intelligence.

Then he went off on his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein and
destroyed all his credibility, both within and without. He would have been
better off attacking Saudi Arabia (not that he should have).

Anyway, the bottom line is this: If we change our foreign policy because
someone attacks us for it, what do you think will happen the next time? Any
time we have a foreign policy that someone doesn't agree with (and there's
always someone), they would just terrorize us until we changed it. When we
react to a terrorist group, it serves to show them (and others) that
terrorism works. You cannot negotiate with terrorists... Period.


Jeffrey Voight > wrote in
:

> There are those that would tell you that the solution to terrorism
> isn't to treat the symptoms (shoebombers and boxcutters) but to treat
> the disease itself. Rather than harden the cabin and examine every
> bag, they would tell you, we should change our foreign policy in order
> to stop being such a target.
>
> They would tell you that the solutions you have proposed cost the
> airline industry (unless you're expecting the tax-payer to foot the
> bill) and don't prevent foreign carriers from experiencing terrorism in
> our airspace.
>
> These aren't necessarily my own opinion. Just putting them out there.
>
> Jeff...
>
>
> Big John wrote:
>> Sydney
>>
>> It's stupid what we all have to go through with to fly.
>>
>> 1. Make the cockpit invulnerable.
>>
>> 2.. Prevent any explosive from getting into the cabin or baggage.
>>
>> Anything else the passengers can take care of.
>>
>> Have stewardesses run through a routine on terrorists in cabin prior
>> to each takeoff like they do with the rest of the emergency
>> procedures.
>>
>> Also teach the Pilots to zoom and dive the aircraft to prevent
>> terrorists from being able to do any coordinated things in cabin.
>>
>> Put three pilots in all cockpits so any two could overpower any
>> individual Pilot who went nuts.
>>
>> Just wish I was in charge of air travel. Sure would be easier and
>> safer.
>>
>> Big John
>>
>>
>> On 6 Feb 2004 22:04:35 -0800, (Snowbird)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Big John > wrote in message
>...
>>>
>>>>Next time if I get caught I'm just going to break the blades off the
>>>>knife and take home. No freebee for the checkers :o(.
>>>
>>>I tell ya Big John if I forget to clean out my purse before
>>>I fly commercial I'll be joining Michael on the list of
>>>suspicious characters. Two knives, leatherman tool, two
>>>inhalers, meds removed from their original container....
>>>and that's not even considering my laptop bag.
>>>
>>>
>>>>They let me take my ball point pens of course which I have
>>>>demostrated to Ridge and company that they are dangerous instrumenets
>>>>and will kill someone.
>>>
>>>One of my coworkers is a 'nam vet he points out his shoelaces
>>>are deadly weapons which he was trained to use by the US gov'mt
>>>
>>>
>>>>In one word (pardon me ladies) CRAP.
>>>
>>>Le mot juste
>>>
>>>Sydney
>>
>>

[Big John]

Judah

Have to agree with most of what you say so put me in the plus column.

Big John


On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:55:02 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>There's a problem with your theory.
>
>As a nation of power, we will always have enemies. We had enemies before
>9/11. Not all of our enemies care about our alliance with Israel, or any
>other foriegn policy. Some of the enemies were born in this country. As
>soon as we express a policy position, whether it is generally popular or
>not, it is likely that someone will have an opposing position. And if they
>are passionate enough, they will fight to the death to protect their
>position.
>
>Frankly, I think that the most practical alternative is to accept the fact
>that some innocent people will be killed by terrorists every year, just as
>some innocent people are killed by car accidents, and random gang
>shootings, and cancer, and a thousand other things. It's an unfortunate,
>harsh reality.
>
>That's not to say that we eliminate all security. But the reality is that
>by making a spectacle of all of the terrorism, by eliminating freedoms of
>our people to create the facade of security, we only serve to fuel their
>fire, and show them that they do have power and control - that their terror
>attacks work.
>
>Quite frankly, I think a better response by the US would have been an
>increase in support for Israel as a result of the terrorist attacks, and a
>demand that our allies take a stand as well - either with us or against us.
>I don't say this because I am an Israel supporter myself (which I am). I
>say this because of the reality of the situation - the "Islamic" Terrorist
>Organizations currently hide in the forest of the Arab Nations and use
>thier size and mobility to evade us. We cannot fight them effectively
>because they are amorphous - they do not have their own national identity,
>but the nations that support them and allow them to live and organize and
>train and plan in their lands put on a front of being our allies. For
>example, it is well known that the Islamic Jihad, responsible for many
>terrorist activities in many lands, is based in Egypt - supposedly an ally
>of both the US and Israel.
>
>If the Arab Nations were pressured to take a stand, they would either
>support the US or support the Terrorist Groups. It might lead to a war,
>maybe even a World War, but it would be a war that was fought by nations
>using war type tactics. Instead, we are left digging in caves for
>terrorists that aren't even there. While I'm not very much of a Bush fan
>overall, I think Bush was close to the mark when he demanded that the other
>nations cut terrorist funding, and demanded Saudi Arabia turn over its
>terrorists and intelligence.
>
>Then he went off on his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein and
>destroyed all his credibility, both within and without. He would have been
>better off attacking Saudi Arabia (not that he should have).
>
>Anyway, the bottom line is this: If we change our foreign policy because
>someone attacks us for it, what do you think will happen the next time? Any
>time we have a foreign policy that someone doesn't agree with (and there's
>always someone), they would just terrorize us until we changed it. When we
>react to a terrorist group, it serves to show them (and others) that
>terrorism works. You cannot negotiate with terrorists... Period.
>
>
>Jeffrey Voight > wrote in
:
>
>> There are those that would tell you that the solution to terrorism
>> isn't to treat the symptoms (shoebombers and boxcutters) but to treat
>> the disease itself. Rather than harden the cabin and examine every
>> bag, they would tell you, we should change our foreign policy in order
>> to stop being such a target.
>>
>> They would tell you that the solutions you have proposed cost the
>> airline industry (unless you're expecting the tax-payer to foot the
>> bill) and don't prevent foreign carriers from experiencing terrorism in
>> our airspace.
>>
>> These aren't necessarily my own opinion. Just putting them out there.
>>
>> Jeff...
>>
>>
>> Big John wrote:
>>> Sydney
>>>
>>> It's stupid what we all have to go through with to fly.
>>>
>>> 1. Make the cockpit invulnerable.
>>>
>>> 2.. Prevent any explosive from getting into the cabin or baggage.
>>>
>>> Anything else the passengers can take care of.
>>>
>>> Have stewardesses run through a routine on terrorists in cabin prior
>>> to each takeoff like they do with the rest of the emergency
>>> procedures.
>>>
>>> Also teach the Pilots to zoom and dive the aircraft to prevent
>>> terrorists from being able to do any coordinated things in cabin.
>>>
>>> Put three pilots in all cockpits so any two could overpower any
>>> individual Pilot who went nuts.
>>>
>>> Just wish I was in charge of air travel. Sure would be easier and
>>> safer.
>>>
>>> Big John
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 Feb 2004 22:04:35 -0800, (Snowbird)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Big John > wrote in message
>...
>>>>
>>>>>Next time if I get caught I'm just going to break the blades off the
>>>>>knife and take home. No freebee for the checkers :o(.
>>>>
>>>>I tell ya Big John if I forget to clean out my purse before
>>>>I fly commercial I'll be joining Michael on the list of
>>>>suspicious characters. Two knives, leatherman tool, two
>>>>inhalers, meds removed from their original container....
>>>>and that's not even considering my laptop bag.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>They let me take my ball point pens of course which I have
>>>>>demostrated to Ridge and company that they are dangerous instrumenets
>>>>>and will kill someone.
>>>>
>>>>One of my coworkers is a 'nam vet he points out his shoelaces
>>>>are deadly weapons which he was trained to use by the US gov'mt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In one word (pardon me ladies) CRAP.
>>>>
>>>>Le mot juste
>>>>
>>>>Sydney
>>>
>>>

[Michael]

Jeffrey Voight > wrote
> There are those that would tell you that the solution to terrorism isn't
> to treat the symptoms (shoebombers and boxcutters) but to treat the
> disease itself. Rather than harden the cabin and examine every bag,
> they would tell you, we should change our foreign policy in order to
> stop being such a target.

Which is exactly the goal of the terrorists, and only starts to sound
like a sensible idea once you buy into the whole 'war on terror'
nonsense.

What makes the whole concept of a warr on terror stupid is this -
terror is only another means to wage war, used by those who lack more
effective means. If these people had tanks and planes and missiles
and armies, they would be using those to attack. They don't, so they
do what they can. A war on terror is a war on war is like fighting
for peace - which is about as sensible as ****ing for virginity. We
do not fight for peace - we fight for freedom, and that includes the
freedom to choose our friends, our allies, and our enemies.

To the extent that we alter our foreign policy in a manner that favors
the terrorist organizations, we allow them to dictate our foreign
policy, and limit our freedom to choose our friends, our allies, and
our enemies. In other words, we show them that terror works as a
weapon. Is that REALLY the message you want to send?

It's important to put all this in perspective and remember that all
acts of terror put together in the last ten years have killed fewer
americans than highway crashes in the last month. In other words, in
an objective sense terror DOESN'T work as a weapon unless we allow it
to. Are you seriously suggesting that we should alter our own foreign
policy to prevent a few thousand deaths in a decade when we won't
change the speed limit from 65 to 35 to prevent as many deaths in a
month?

A far more reasonable response to the situation would be to do
something really, really nasty (from the point of view of the terror
organizations) every time they succeed in killing a few of us. For
example, rather than spending tons of money on the largely ineffective
war on terror, we could pledge a sum of money, for every american life
lost in a terrorist incident, to be given as additional military aid
to Israel. It's cheaper than what we're doing, and it will force the
terrorists to realize that any time they succeed in hurting us, they
strengthen their worst enemy.

We can be even nastier by stating that anything Israel chooses to do
in the region for, say, three months following a successful terrorist
attack against Americans, no matter how egregious or brutal, will not
be sanctioned by the US - and that the US will veto any UN sanctions
as well. Let every terrorist know that even if he gets a few of us,
it will only mean open season on his own people and a free had for his
worst enemies.

> They would tell you that the solutions you have proposed cost the
> airline industry (unless you're expecting the tax-payer to foot the
> bill) and don't prevent foreign carriers from experiencing terrorism in
> our airspace.

The airlines are operating dangerous machinery that can be and has
been used to kill thousands of people on the ground who never
consented to the risk. It is their responsibility to secure that
machinery from unauthorized persons, thus security is a normal cost of
doing business. If this makes them non-competitive on certain routes
with other forms of transportation such as cars, trains, or light
airplanes, that's just too bad. Maybe we really don't need airline
flights from Houston to Austin. If foreign carrirers won't implement
security procedures, we are under no obligation to permit them to
operate in our airspace.

Michael

[Judah]

I was with you until the very end of your post here...

Thousands of people are hit by drunk drivers or other accidental injuries
and deaths caused by motor vehicles. Quite a number more than those that
are killed in airplane incidents.

A Ryder Truck was used to kill thousands of people in Oklahoma City. And
yet it didn't take very long for Ryder Trucks to go back to normal renting
operations.

Thousands of people have died in Amtrak accidents either because they were
in a train that derailed, or because they were hit by a train as they
walked or drove across the tracks.

Heck - people in New York City died recently in a Staten Island Ferry
accident, and yet no security measures were taken there...

Little or nothing has been done to modify the security of these modes of
transportation, yet the REALITY is that these machines are equally as
dangerous as airplanes.

To take it a step further, thousands of innocent people have been killed by
knives, guns, and electric shocks. People get killed when their ovens and
microwaves explode. Some people even get killed simply by falling down the
stairs in their own homes, or drowning in their own bathtubs, or lighting
their homes on fire with a cigarette.

And yet little has been done to protect people from their own "dangerous
machines".

The reason the airline industry gets hit harder with all this security
bulls&*^ is because there are far more people who are insecure about flying
to begin with. Most people don't have an irrational fear of riding in a
train. Many people take trains every day. Or if they drive somewhere, they
cross a railroad track or see a train riding alongside the highway. It's a
normal, every day occurrance.

Many people, on the other hand, have never flown in a plane, or fly very
infrequently. They don't regularly look up, or if they do, the planes are
too high and obscure for them to see. They don't realize how many planes
and passengers fly safely every day. They only hear about the accidents. If
they see a train wreck on TV, they know that there are millions of trains
that rode that day. So it's an unfortunate incident that is dismissed
pretty readily. If they hear about a plane incident, they somehow believe
that it is the only plane that took off that day, and it could have been
them.

That and they probably have an irrational fear of heights anyway...

Anyway, fear is a funny thing. It makes people believe that if they show
their driver's license to a guy in a white uniform, they are somehow safer
because bad guys would never do such a thing...


(Michael) wrote in
om:

<snip>
> The airlines are operating dangerous machinery that can be and has
> been used to kill thousands of people on the ground who never
> consented to the risk. It is their responsibility to secure that
> machinery from unauthorized persons, thus security is a normal cost of
> doing business. If this makes them non-competitive on certain routes
> with other forms of transportation such as cars, trains, or light
> airplanes, that's just too bad. Maybe we really don't need airline
> flights from Houston to Austin. If foreign carrirers won't implement
> security procedures, we are under no obligation to permit them to
> operate in our airspace.
>
> Michael

[Wes]

Jeffrey Voight > wrote in message >...

>
> We don't protect the roads, we don't protect the schools, we don't
> protect my office building. Why then, do we throw great gobs of money
> into protecting the airline industry? It's because it's a visible and
> obvious target. All the other targets are either obvious or visible or
> both, but they don't get the press the way that a jumbo-jet vaporizing
> itself into a building gets press.

Yeah, all good points in your post. My sense is that the special
attention paid to airports and aircraft derives from (1) the capacity
to cause tremendous damage with a single terrorist attack, and (2) the
extremely severe economic and psychological "ripple effect" that
ensues if an airplane is successfully targeted. Even though thousands
of people die in car accidents every year in the US, these occur
usually in ones and twos, and there's at least the perception of
autonomy and control for drivers since so many fatal accidents occur
consequent to (a) driving drunk, (b) failing to wear a seatbelt, (c)
driving at recklessly high speeds, and/or (d) outright daydreaming by
the driver, all of which a cautious and alert driver can avoid.
(Although IIRC some decent percentage of auto fatalities occur even in
the presence of such precautions-- don't know the actual figure.)

OTOH a traveler's safety on an airplane is usually in the hands of
others, and while a single auto crash can be tragic, a single airplane
crash can be catastrophic-- entire families were wiped out when that
Iranian jetliner was accidentally downed in 1988, and the downing of
Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland later in the same year
killed nearly 300 people, including many on the ground. It basically
ruined Pan Am and caused massive economic damage. Since airplanes are
large, rapidly-moving objects filled with fuel, they also have the
potential to cause enormous damage on the ground as well. If
terrorists were to hijack a plane and go kamikaze, as on September 11,
or bomb it during ascent or descent near a major city airport, they
can strike buildings and shopping malls, kill thousands, and
perpetrate enormous property damage. (9/11 alone, IIRC, not only
killed over 3,000 people but caused over $1 trillion in damage.) When
the business air travelers begin to shift to teleconferencing and the
would-be tourists scrap their plans to take little Billy and Jenny to
Disneyworld or London (as occurred post-9/11), there's very severe
economic pain felt on many sides for a long time.

People cancelling their flights like this may not constitute strictly
"rational" behavior, but the human mind isn't rational; there's a
primal urge to feel secure when one's safety is in the hands of
others, especially when entire families are grouped together. That's
why the notion of accepting the fact that some innocent people will be
killed by terrorists every year, however philosophically admissible,
just isn't practical or politically workable when it comes to
passenger aviation; the large number of casualties in the air, coupled
with the death toll on the ground, and all the awful economic
dislocations afterward, make even rare events extraordinarily
detrimental. People often point out that the British people became
psychologically inured to the specter of IRA terrorism over many
decades but, then again, even the worst IRA attacks didn't kill
hundreds of Britons.

I concur with you that much of what the TSA does now in its screening
is ineffectual "window dressing"; however, the solution is not to
dampen the security, but to switch to still rigorous yet smarter
screening methods that actually pay dividends. IMHO frankly this
amounts in large part to doing the obvious: Stop obsessing so much
about pocket knives, nail clippers, and staplers, which just
inconveniences everybody and costs billions of taxpayer dollars (and
it's doubtful a hijacker could use such small items anyway, since
cockpit doors are bolted). Instead, focus more on stopping bombs and
obvious weapons (like something that could actually fire a bullet),
especially if aided by specific intelligence. It probably doesn't
even require much fancy technology. Although there are some recent
advances in plastic explosives and similar chemical detection
technology (http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20010911S0063 and
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/649-1.html) along with
the bomb-sniffing dogs and hand searches, we probably don't need to
breed Fido 5.0 The Super Sniffer to enhance security; there are some
relatively cheap, patently obvious improvements that can be
implemented chiefly in the background checks and access restrictions
for the teams that service and supply the planes, or load cargo onto
it. Charles G. Slepian
(http://www.voicesofsept11.org/security/062203.php) points out that
it's here, at the "back" of the plane, that security most needs
tightening. We'd probably get a lot more mileage for our taxpayer
money if the TSA stopped frittering away billions on confiscating
people's hair curlers and dentures, and redirected the money to better
control at the back of the plane as well as on more vigorous and
effective counterintelligence. These wouldn't allow for absolute
security of course, but there are some common-sense measures like this
which can boost security substantially and in a cost-effective manner.

> > the nations that support them [terrorist groups and funders] and allow them to live
> > and organize and
> > train and plan in their lands put on a front of being our allies. For
> > example, it is well known that the Islamic Jihad, responsible for many
> > terrorist activities in many lands, is based in Egypt - supposedly an ally
> > of both the US and Israel.
> >
> > If the Arab Nations were pressured to take a stand, they would either
> > support the US or support the Terrorist Groups. It might lead to a war,
> > maybe even a World War, but it would be a war that was fought by nations
> > using war type tactics. Instead, we are left digging in caves for
> > terrorists that aren't even there. While I'm not very much of a Bush fan
> > overall, I think Bush was close to the mark when he demanded that the other
> > nations cut terrorist funding, and demanded Saudi Arabia turn over its
> > terrorists and intelligence.
> >
> > Then he went off on his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein and
> > destroyed all his credibility, both within and without.

I totally concur. I found it ironic that Bush launched this war
against Iraq on the pretext of "combating terrorism," when if anything
Iraq had the most tenuous connection to Sept. 11 of any of the Arab
countries. 15 out of 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia; the
ringleader was from Egypt; others were from smaller Middle Eastern
States. And you're right, it was our supposed "allies" who were doing
the most to incite the terrorists, especially Saudi Arabia, by
spreading radical Wahhabism worldwide, teaching their *kids* to hate
Jews and Christians in their textbooks, and blaming their own failures
and corruption on the West. Baathist Iraq was a secular society and
itself targeted by Osama bin Laden; not a single Iraqi was a
participant among the hijackers and Saddam did not support or plan
Sept. 11, yet Iraq was the invaded country of the month. It wasn't
smart for the US to have posted the troops in Saudi Arabia like that
since 1991 (they were there just to enforce the no-fly zones in Iraq
and could have been rotated to more peripheral nations), and the Iraqi
sanctions weren't working, but the main wellspring for terrorism was
Saudi Arabia's corrupt policy and deflection of culpability for their
own inadequacies in the position of a ruling government. Fortunately,
the Saudi officials are starting to cooperate now more intensively,
since the Riyadh bombings in May 2003 at least, because they've
started to realize that they're a target of al-Qaeda as well, perhaps
even the main target, and they'd be wise to shape up quickly before
they wind up with even deeper problems than they already have.

Wes Ulm

[Wes]

(Wes) wrote in message >...
> Jeffrey Voight > wrote in message >...
>
[sorry about the attribution for the text below-- I snipped it out
inadvertently]

> > Jude wrote:
> > > the nations that support them [terrorist groups and funders] and allow them to live
> > > and organize and
> > > train and plan in their lands put on a front of being our allies.
<snip>
> > > I think Bush was close to the mark when he demanded that the other
> > > nations cut terrorist funding, and demanded Saudi Arabia turn over its
> > > terrorists and intelligence.
> > >
> > > Then he went off on his personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein and
> > > destroyed all his credibility, both within and without.
>
> I totally concur.
<snip>
> And you're right, it was our supposed "allies" who were doing
> the most to incite the terrorists, especially Saudi Arabia, by
> spreading radical Wahhabism worldwide, teaching their *kids* to hate
> Jews and Christians in their textbooks, and blaming their own failures
> and corruption on the West.
<snip>
> It wasn't
> smart for the US to have posted the troops in Saudi Arabia like that
> since 1991 (they were there just to enforce the no-fly zones in Iraq
> and could have been rotated to more peripheral nations), and the Iraqi
> sanctions weren't working, but the main wellspring for terrorism was
> Saudi Arabia's corrupt policy and deflection of culpability for their
> own inadequacies in the position of a ruling government. Fortunately,
> the Saudi officials are starting to cooperate now more intensively
<snip>

I should add that over the long term, the best bulwark against
terrorism originating in the Arab world is for the moderates-- esp. in
Saudi Arabia-- to gain some traction in the region's culture war, and
I don't view this to be as difficult a challenge as many portray it.
In spite of some bitter resentment in the region toward the US, the
predominant reactions in the Middle East (as well as everywhere else)
toward the 9/11 attacks, the Lockerbie bombing, the 1998 embassy
bombings, and the Bali bombing in 2002 were outright revulsion
directed at the perpetrators. Political conflict and even violent
clashes are a fact of life throughout the world, and attacks against
an invading army, a garrison, or occupying force have long been an
element of armed struggle; what made all the attacks above so vile was
that they were directed *specifically* at unarmed, noncombatant
civilians.

There is absolutely no moral, ethical, or political philosophy that
remotely condones such actions. Indeed, in the Muslim faith and
Quranic teachings, physical attacks are permitted in immediate
self-defense and against an armed opponent, but never, ever against
unarmed civilians (and no amount of sophistry can be used to ever
justify them). Violators of this precept are invariably bound for
eternal damnation in hell. (And somebody at the Onion "followed up"
on this idea: http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/hijackers_surprised.html
See also http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/god_clarifies_dont_kill.html
Genuine classics of journalism.) Although there were some asinine
cheerleaders of the September 11 atrocity, most were appalled, and
this is why so many in the region bought into that addle-headed
conspiracy theory that the 9/11 attacks were a Mossad plot or some
such nonsense; Sept. 11 and assaults like it are repugnant at an
intrinsic level, and people don't want to own up to them as being
committed by members of their culture. (Even in Syria, not exactly a
US friend, the locals were apparently greeting tourists with anti-al
Qaeda sentiments post-9/11-- even as they castigated US policy in many
areas.)

Besides their moral reprehensibility, 9/11 and similar attacks were
strategically stupid; being as indiscriminate as they were against
noncombatant targets, they probably killed many people who might have
been otherwise sympathetic to al-Qaeda's supposed anti-colonial cause
(chiefly removal of the US troops from Saudi Arabia and ending the
sanctions in Iraq), angered people so much that they unified and
galvanized opponents, and gave rise to harsh reactions to al-Qaeda
operatives and state supporters (chiefly the Taliban). Even in Iraq
right now, when news stations have those interviews with insurgents
attacking US and other Coalition troops, the guerrillas tend to be
pretty careful about drawing distinctions-- attacking armed convoys
and cooperating individuals in the country, but not directly targeting
civilians in any case. These are *hardened fighters* saying this.

Thus there's both a moral and strategic case for moderates throughout
the Middle East to make their voices heard, and they probably know
that having a Gandhi-like figure would do vastly more to further their
causes than 100 Osama bin Ladens. (Indeed, al-Qaeda has probably done
more damage to the region's aspirations than any other organization,
Muslim or otherwise.) So the best assistance for US counterterrorism
operations will ultimately be from within the Muslim world itself. We
can help out by escaping our oil dependence (photovoltaic solar panels
are a beautiful sight) and making sure to respect the wishes of the
people on the "Arab street," rather than kowtowing to corrupt and
oppressive officials. The intelligence war against al-Qaeda
operatives (big fish and little fish) is still crucial, and
apprehending Ayman al-Zawahiri, Saif al-Adel, Midhat Mursi, Sulaiman
Abu Ghaith, and other operations chiefs would gut what's left of
al-Qaeda. But it's ultimately a war of ideas, and hopefully the war
will be won by cooler heads within the Muslim world, for its own sake
and for everyone affected by the more fanatic elements therein.

Wes Ulm

[Dennis O'Connor]

Wes, your analysis is right on, the ONLY terrorist minimizing method of air
transport is in 4 place (maximum) airplanes that cannot physically exceed
250 knots... That way there will be no aiplanes flying over this country
capable of inflicting mass casualties or mass property loss... I expect you
to demand that your congress critter introduce a bill shutting down the
cattle haulers they call airliners..
denny

"Wes" > wrote in message

[Michael]

Judah > wrote
> I was with you until the very end of your post here...
>
> Thousands of people are hit by drunk drivers or other accidental injuries
> and deaths caused by motor vehicles.

Yes they are. Did you know that if you fail to take reasonable
security precautions with your car, and it is used to do damage, then
you are liable? That includes leaving your keys in the car, lending
your car to a drunk, etc. I'm sure you know that it is illegal to
operate a car on the public roads of any state without proof of
financial responsibility (either a policy of liability insurance or
bond in lieu). Did you know it's illegal to manufacture and sell a
car that fails to meet certain safety standards in regard to braking
ability, crashworthiness, etc? Did you know automakers have been
successfully sued for manufacturing defects that made the cars
dangerous? Pinto anyone? Did you know that corporations have been
successfully sued for failing to exercise proper safety controls over
their fleets?

And we're talking passengers cars here - which are roughly equivalent
to small light singles in damage potential. No form of land-based
transport is equivalent to a 747 with the tens of thousands of gallons
of fuel it carries in terms of ability to do damage to innocent
bystanders (rather than passengers) but when it comes to sea transport
- well, anyone remember the Exxon Valdez and the lawsuits that
folowed?

My point is that airlines are not entitled to any special protection,
but should compete on the same basis as any other form of
transportation. That includes taking reasonable precautions against
killing their passengers, and it includes some very stiff protection
for innocent bystanders. Certainly a steel door to the cockpit is not
too much to ask.

> A Ryder Truck was used to kill thousands of people in Oklahoma City. And
> yet it didn't take very long for Ryder Trucks to go back to normal renting
> operations.

And frankly, I don't think it's reasonable to rent a truck to someone
without at least a show of ID. Of course that doesn't happen anyway.
In any case, a Ryder Truck can't do the kind of damage a heavy
airliner can do. The appropriate level of security is defined by the
relative risk.

> Thousands of people have died in Amtrak accidents either because they were
> in a train that derailed, or because they were hit by a train as they
> walked or drove across the tracks.

Yes, Amtrak is very dangerous - to the passengers. But the people who
were hit by a train were invariably doing something they should not
have been - crossing the tracks without looking. The people in the
WTC did nothing wrong. That's the main issue here. Thousands of
innocent bystanders were killed, and while the primary cause of death
was criminal acts on the part of the terrorists, airline negligence
was certainly contributory.

Imagine you own a gun, and you keep it on your coffee table. A
criminal steals it and commits murder. Sure, he's a criminal. It's
his fault. But you should have kept that gun in a safe place, and
because you didn't you will face civil liability. It is no more
unreasonable to require airlines to prevent access to the cockpit by
unauthorized persons than it is to require gun owners to keep their
guns in a safe place. An airliner is a far more effecive weapon than
a gun, so much greater protection is warranted.

> Little or nothing has been done to modify the security of these modes of
> transportation, yet the REALITY is that these machines are equally as
> dangerous as airplanes.

To their passengers certainly, but not to innocent bystanders. And
that's the basic issue. Innocent bystanders did not consent to the
risk, and are thus entitled to a significantly higher level of
protection than the people who chose to be passengers.

Michael