Pilots Group Grades U.S. Aviation Security an 'F'

[George Patterson]

By Deborah Charles
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of airline pilots gave the U.S. government
failing grades on Thursday in several areas of aviation security including the
screening of employees and cargo, and defending planes from shoulder-fired
missiles.

The Coalition of Airline Pilots Association released its Aviation Security
Report Card that showed aviation security gets average to failing grades in over
a dozen subject areas.
The trade group gave failing "F" grades to the government in five areas --
screening of employees, screening of cargo, high-tech credentialing of crew
members, self-defense training for crew and the plan for countering
shoulder-fired missiles.
The group gave good grades to the government on improved bag screening and on
reinforcing cockpit doors on commercial airplanes.
Jon Safley, president of CAPA, said filling some of the "gaping holes" in
aviation security will require major changes in the way the airlines and
airports do business, and in the way the government manages airline security.
"The technology exists, or could be updated, to address many of these security
problems," said Safley, whose group represents about 22,000 pilots from American
Airlines, United Parcel Service, Southwest Airlines and AirTran Airways .
"But neither the airlines, the airports nor government officials have given
these issues the priority they deserve."
CAPA said that while screening of airline passengers and their bags had improved
since the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacked airline attacks, screening of ramp employees
and cargo has not improved.
"We should have one level of security to protect the American people," Safley
said. "If we're screening passengers, we certainly need to screen employees who
have access to aircraft and baggage. And not screening cargo on all-cargo
carriers invites disaster."
The Department of Homeland Security is studying how it might be able to adapt
anti-missile technology, which is common on military aircraft, for use on U.S.
commercial airliners to thwart shoulder-fired rocket attacks by al Qaeda or
others.
Concern over the possibility that attackers might use shoulder-fired weapons to
down a plane grew after a missile nearly hit an Israeli airliner leaving Kenya
in 2002. Cash-strapped airlines are skeptical of the plan for anti-missile
systems due to high costs and liability.
CAPA also gave low grades to the government on security of airports, saying that
the Transportation Security Administration did not properly or consistently
oversee the security.
It also said there was poor sharing of information on potential threats to
aircraft, and said airlines did not share the crucial information with their
captains.
----------------------------------------------------------------

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Denny]

As someone who travels with the clothes I'm wearing and a book to read,
I have scant sympathy for either the airline or the government... For
people flying somewhere the imperative is to get them there safely, not
to get the 70 or 80 pounds of cargo per person there safely...

If I were Czar you would be limited to an overcoat, purse/briefcase,
one laptop or equal size carry on... and that's it... If you want to
ship 80 pounds of baggage, send it by UPS or FedEx...

All right now, at least 300 of you will react in outrage and
indignation... Well, I'm indignant and outraged also because hundreds
of millions of taxpayer dollars, including mine, are being spent on
xray machines and all kinds of technology all because folks ship the
contents of their house by passenger plane...

No baggage, no baggage screeners, just the normal pat down of your
person, no baggage carts, no or minimal xray machines, no lost luggage,
and on, and on... Why the airlines would be forced to drop the ticket
prices, and 2/3 of the airport screeners would be allowed to do
something productive for the national economy...

denny

[Robert M. Gary]

It always ****es me off when I get on with my small carry on (enough
business clothes for a week rolled up real tight) and can't find room
in the overhead because some jerk brough his entire closet with him.

-Robert, CFI

[John Galban]

George Patterson wrote:
> By Deborah Charles
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of airline pilots gave the U.S.
government
> failing grades on Thursday in several areas of aviation security
including the
> screening of employees and cargo, and defending planes from
shoulder-fired
> missiles.
>
<snip>

Sounds like more fear-mongering to me. Unless every airliner is
going to be popping off IR flares whenever they get below 10,000 ft.,
there's not much the Government can do to protect them from a
Stinger-type shoulder fired missile.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[OtisWinslow]

Yup. Good plan. Let's just trash business flying altogether and
let them all drive. Your plan might work okay for people going
someplace for a period of time .. but for business people who
often change their plans frequently .. how do you propose they
get their clothing to be where they are in a timely manner.

The single thing that would make the biggest difference in
security is to allow profiling. Until we look for the terrorists
themselves .. we're just ****ing in the wind.





"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> As someone who travels with the clothes I'm wearing and a book to read,
> I have scant sympathy for either the airline or the government... For
> people flying somewhere the imperative is to get them there safely, not
> to get the 70 or 80 pounds of cargo per person there safely...
>
> If I were Czar you would be limited to an overcoat, purse/briefcase,
> one laptop or equal size carry on... and that's it... If you want to
> ship 80 pounds of baggage, send it by UPS or FedEx...
>
> All right now, at least 300 of you will react in outrage and
> indignation... Well, I'm indignant and outraged also because hundreds
> of millions of taxpayer dollars, including mine, are being spent on
> xray machines and all kinds of technology all because folks ship the
> contents of their house by passenger plane...
>
> No baggage, no baggage screeners, just the normal pat down of your
> person, no baggage carts, no or minimal xray machines, no lost luggage,
> and on, and on... Why the airlines would be forced to drop the ticket
> prices, and 2/3 of the airport screeners would be allowed to do
> something productive for the national economy...
>
> denny
>

[Jose]

> The single thing that would make the biggest difference in
> security is to allow profiling. Until we look for the terrorists
> themselves .. we're just ****ing in the wind.

Yes, and not just terrorists. We should profile for other criminals
too, such as drug lords, child molesters, embezzlers, welfare cheats,
deadbeat dads, jaywalkers, athiests, and other evil people. Once this
is in place, we can enjoy the free society our forefathers died for.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Doug Carter]

Jose wrote:
>> The single thing that would make the biggest difference in
>> security is to allow profiling. Until we look for the terrorists
>> themselves .. we're just ****ing in the wind.
>
> Yes, and not just terrorists. We should profile for other criminals
> too, such as drug lords, child molesters, embezzlers, welfare cheats,
> deadbeat dads, jaywalkers, athiests, and other evil people. Once this
> is in place, we can enjoy the free society our forefathers died for.
>

So on one hand we have organized gangs with a demonstrated ability of
killing thousands of civilians at a time and a strongly stated desire of
killing hundreds of thousands and on the other hand we have embezzlers,
welfare cheats, etc.

If you look really hard Jose, you may be able to dimly make out a
substantive distinction.

[Jose]

> If you look really hard Jose, you may be able to dimly make out a substantive distinction.

Yes, =I= can make that distinction. However I do not trust our
government to do so.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> So on one hand we have organized gangs with a demonstrated ability of killing thousands of civilians at a time and a strongly stated desire of killing hundreds of thousands and on the other hand we have embezzlers, welfare cheats, etc.
>
> If you look really hard Jose, you may be able to dimly make out a substantive distinction.

(oops - pressed the wrong button.)

Yes, =I= can make that distinction. However I do not trust our
government to do so. I have personally been on the wrong end of a
machine gun for insisting (politely) that my film be hand inspected at
LGA rather than run through the X-ray machine. The screener insisted
that there were "secret laws" that applied, something that was only
straightend out (in my favor) when I called the FAA out on them. The
same thing happened to me in DC when I dashed into an alcove (a
legitimate entrance to a museum) in a rainstorm; I didn't want to enter
the museum, but didn't want my film X-rayed. Ten security guards
escorted me back into the rainstorm. (I swear the entire contingent was
called out).

Does "carnivore" ring a bell, or has everyone forgotten the gross
intrusion of privacy =that= entailed? The profile of the Columbine
killers is the same as a good portion of our youth, most of whom are
perfectly good citizens with odd (or not even that odd) tastes.
Profiling effectively criminalizes harmless but unusual behavior, and
this is bad for society in a way that will not be apparant for twenty
years, and cannot be undone.

The presumption of innocence upon which this country is based becomes
nothing more than doubletalk if we need to prove our innocence before
being presumed so.

We are doing =far= more damage to ourselves than the terrorists ever did.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[C J Campbell]

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> As someone who travels with the clothes I'm wearing and a book to read,
> I have scant sympathy for either the airline or the government...

Well, the rest of us have scant sympathy for your impatience. The fact is,
most people plan to stay at their destination for more than a few hours.
What are you, French? I don't suppose you bathe, either.

[Doug Carter]

Jose wrote:
>> So on one hand we have organized gangs with a demonstrated ability of
>> killing thousands of civilians at a time and a strongly stated desire
>> of killing hundreds of thousands and on the other hand we have
>> embezzlers, welfare cheats, etc.
>>
>> If you look really hard Jose, you may be able to dimly make out a
>> substantive distinction.
>
>
> (oops - pressed the wrong button.)
>
> Yes, =I= can make that distinction. However I do not trust our
> government to do so. I have personally been on the wrong end of a
> machine gun for insisting (politely) that my film be hand inspected at
> LGA rather than run through the X-ray machine.

I'm impressed. I go through LGA, DCA, IAD and other airports several
times a month; have not seen TSA pulling pulling machine guns at all,
much less during polite discussion.

> We are doing =far= more damage to ourselves than the terrorists ever did.

Well, the terrorists have killed several thousand of us and want to kill
as many as they can get to. Unless TSA has been mass murdering
travelers with their metal detector wands I presume you are referring to
damage to your ego.

It *is* quite necessary to make sure that law enforcement is held
accountable for any unreasonable treatment whether it is force during
arrest or searching someone they should not. Having said that, the
current mindlessly PC driven policies prevent focusing on more likely
killers is going to get people killed.

[Jose]

> I'm impressed. I go through LGA, DCA, IAD and other airports several times a month; have not seen TSA pulling pulling machine guns at all, much less during polite discussion.

It's changed some. This was during the early days.

> Unless TSA has been mass murdering travelers with their metal detector wands I presume you are referring to damage to your ego.

No. My ego is unimportant. I am referring to the damage to the freedom
of Americans to just be a little odd if they feel like it. The freedom
to fly small airplanes near the Capitol or the Space Shuttle. The
freedom to eat like a civilized person aboard an airliner. The freedom
to buy an airplane ticket with cash. The freedom to read without being
scrutinzed by law enforcement. The freedom to do a hundred little
things, neither of which matter much, but in aggregate add up.

I'm also talking about the resources spent on "protecting" stuff that
either doesn't need protecting, cannot (in principle) be protected
anyway, or is being protected from the wrong thing. I'm talking about
the way of =thinking= that has changed in this country, where people are
looked upon with suspicion if they are not Good Christians or Good Jews.

I'm talking about the mindset of fear that has half the country eager to
surrender even more freedoms for the illusion that "Good Government" is
going to make all these problems "go away", as long as we give up our
own ability to defend ourselves and just trust in law enforcement (front
page news yesterday in the NY Times - police detectives murder for the Mob)

I'm talking about the people who will one day be shot down for violating
one of those stupid pop-up TFRs meant to protect the egos of the high
officials and of Disney World.

Terrorists can destroy our economy (and kill many people as collateral
damage) just by running naked through the airport security area
backwards. If we profile young Arab males, the next attack will be from
an older German female. The next weapon will be casually dropped into
an American granma's bag, and retrieved later (or left to be discovered
by the TSA). There are =so= many ways around profiling, and if you
think Osama hasn't thought of this, you underestimate him and his ilk.

All he has to do is destroy the heart - the foundation - of this
country, and he has won. Profiling =is= the evil against which we stand.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:04:45 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:

>> We are doing =far= more damage to ourselves than the terrorists ever did.
>
>Well, the terrorists have killed several thousand of us and want to kill
> as many as they can get to.

by headcount? maybe. a good part of the WTC were non us citizens. you also
have to count in all the dead soldiers you lost during your search for ..
aaahh ... WMD. - whatever. this will always lead to an endless discussion,
so I give in.

but (!): how many of your principles have you as a nation already given up?
in this matter, the terrorists have reached farther than with a few car
bombs.

#m

--
<http://www.terranova.net/content/images/goering.jpg>

[Doug Carter]

Jose wrote:

> Terrorists can destroy our economy (and kill many people as collateral
> damage) just by running naked through the airport security area
> backwards.

Interesting technique. Perhaps TSA should keep a supply of hospital
gowns to cover naked terrorists rampaging about the airport.

> If we profile young Arab males, the next attack will be from
> an older German female.

This assumes equal willingness of young Arab males and older German
females to be mass murderers.

> There are =so= many ways around profiling, and if you
> think Osama hasn't thought of this, you underestimate him and his ilk.

I don't want to be an apologist for TSA or any other government agency
but how do you explain the fact that despite numerous attempts the
terrorists have been unable to kill anyone else in this country since 9/11?

Either Osama and Al Queda don't deserve their Allah like reputation or
TSA & the rest of DHS have been effective.

Our economy is doing extremely well; the envy of Europe in fact and we
survived more draconian restrictions and minor personal inconveniences
during WWII.

We are winning and will prevail despite whiners and Chicken Littles.

[Doug Carter]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> but (!): how many of your principles have you as a nation already given up?

Zero.

The only significant erosions to the Constitution have been by caused by
the gradual expansion of government over the years.

Face it, the terrorists have been completely ineffective in the USA.
The USA economy dipped briefly from the shock of 9/11 and then entered a
stronger growth phase. USA unemployment continues to be about half that
of the EU.

It doesn't sell newspapers to say so or sooth the old Europe's sense of
inferiority but 9/11 will be recorded in history as a complete blunder
by Mideast dictator wannabes that led to a general democratic revolution
in that part of the world.

USA's greatest threat is Rock and Roll.

[Jose]

> Perhaps TSA should keep a supply of hospital gowns to cover naked terrorists rampaging about the airport.

Interesting solution, but the problem isn't that they'd be naked. The
problem is that they'd've entered the sterile area, albeit unarmed
(which was the point of being naked). We'd still close down the airport
and re-screen everyone. Do this once a day at a different airport, at a
time which fits a pattern that is revealed later and then changed.

> This assumes equal willingness of young Arab males and older German females to be mass murderers.

Perhaps. But don't underestimate the ability of ideas to cross
boundaries. There is nothing particularly Arab about this whole thing -
there are plenty of other groups (including Good Christians) which do
horrible things to each other in the name of some deity or another.
There are Americans on trial right now for participating in terrorist
activities related to 9-11, and there are plenty of people who "fit the
profile" who have =nothing= to do with 9-11 or terrorism. Fueling
hatred by profiling is an act of destruction in itself, and costs lives.

> how do you explain the fact that despite numerous attempts the terrorists have been unable to kill anyone else in this country since 9/11?

Ever since 9-11 I have been eating yoghurt and fruit for breakfast, and
I believe that this has kept the terrorists at bay. Not one attack has
succeeded since I have been doing this.

Seriously, the Osama attacks are carefully planned over the course of
many many years - they are not impulse actions. We may have made it
more difficult to accomplish a certain kind of action, but we've also
made it more difficult to thwart it should it occur. I'm not sure this
is progress, and I think the costs to our freedoms outweigh the dubious
benefits provided by "security".

It is the nature of an open society that it is vulnerable. It ceases to
be an open society long before it ceases to be vulnerable. Profiling is
just one way this happens.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:24:52 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:

>I don't want to be an apologist for TSA or any other government agency
>but how do you explain the fact that despite numerous attempts the
>terrorists have been unable to kill anyone else in this country since 9/11?

and the many years before 9/11 without attacks was only luck?
saying that due to TSA there has been no further attack is a bad argument.

#m
--
<http://www.terranova.net/content/images/goering.jpg>

[C J Campbell]

I still fail to see how confiscating pocket knives, fingernail clippers,
baseball bats, or even guns does a single thing to improve passenger safety.

[Doug Carter]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:24:52 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:
>
>
>>I don't want to be an apologist for TSA or any other government agency
>>but how do you explain the fact that despite numerous attempts the
>>terrorists have been unable to kill anyone else in this country since 9/11?
>
>
> and the many years before 9/11 without attacks was only luck?
> saying that due to TSA there has been no further attack is a bad argument.
>

OK, presuming that TSA is ineffective then apparently OBL and Al Queda
have been, for the most part, neutered by their devastating losses in
the Mideast.

Or... perhaps they think an attack every ten years or so will accomplish
something other than getting the remaining dregs of their organization
killed or arrested.

Seems like a good "get out the vote" program would go a lot further
towards making them an effective political force; but then serial
killers generally kill for pleasure, not political gain.

[Doug Carter]

Jose wrote:

>> This assumes equal willingness of young Arab males and older German
>> females to be mass murderers.
>
>
> Perhaps. But don't underestimate the ability of ideas to cross
> boundaries. There is nothing particularly Arab about this whole thing -

Islam is not restricted to Arabic countries but then Islam is not the
problem. Specific Arabic terrorist groups that use Islam as a blind are
the problem.

> Ever since 9-11 I have been eating yoghurt and fruit for breakfast, and
> I believe that this has kept the terrorists at bay.

This is a good thing, especially since you are much more likely to die
of a heart attack than a terrorist attack in this country.

> We may have made it
> more difficult to accomplish a certain kind of action, but we've also
> made it more difficult to thwart it should it occur.

Sorry, not following this argument...

> It is the nature of an open society that it is vulnerable. It ceases to
> be an open society long before it ceases to be vulnerable. Profiling is
> just one way this happens.

I don't, for the most part disagree, but, consider this: Would you
suggest that after two white males rob a bank that we should be looking
for "two humans?" The reaction to so called "profiling" is, for the
most part, an emotional derivative of the civil rights movement in this
country rather than a fundamental issue.

[mike regish]

You're obviously using the wrong drugs.

mike regish

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message news:ZdCYd.9307>

> USA's greatest threat is Rock and Roll.

[Doug Carter]

mike regish wrote:
> You're obviously using the wrong drugs.
>
> mike regish
>
> "Doug Carter" > wrote in message news:ZdCYd.9307>
>
>>USA's greatest threat is Rock and Roll.
>

Sorry, forgot the trailing :)

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:29:13 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:

>OK, presuming that TSA is ineffective then apparently OBL and Al Queda
>have been, for the most part, neutered by their devastating losses in
>the Mideast.

well, flying 2 big planes into a skyscraper is only good for propaganda.
horrible pictures for the media.
what would you do if you _really_ want to cause severe damage? think about
infrastructure! think about water, energy, internet, ...

#m

--
<http://www.terranova.net/content/images/goering.jpg>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:40:52 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:

>Would you
>suggest that after two white males rob a bank that we should be looking
>for "two humans?"

Would you say that we should all watch out for white males because they are
potential bank robbers?

#m

--
<http://www.terranova.net/content/images/goering.jpg>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:13:19 -0500, mike regish wrote:

>You're obviously using the wrong drugs.

And I am missing SEX.
Isn't it "Sex, Drugs and Rock'n Roll"?

:-)

This brings me to an idea: what about embarassing the screeners? Just put
some adult toys in your luggage. Are there some legal restrictions in the
US?

#m

>mike regish
>
>"Doug Carter" > wrote in message news:ZdCYd.9307>
>
>> USA's greatest threat is Rock and Roll.
>

--
<http://www.terranova.net/content/images/goering.jpg>

[Jose]

> Islam is not restricted to Arabic countries but then Islam is not the problem. Specific Arabic terrorist groups that use Islam as a blind are the problem.

.... which means that profiling would not be all that effective. That
is, unless you profile so narrowly that you essentially just get the
criminals themselves. The whole point of profiling is to detain people
based on surface similarities to the group you are targeting, hoping
that you'll snag someone.

I have no problem with detaining members of "specific Arabic terrorist
groups that use Islam as a blind". But this isn't profiling.

>> We may have made it more difficult to accomplish a certain kind of action, but we've also made it more difficult to thwart it should it occur.
>
> Sorry, not following this argument...

We ban pocket knives on airplanes. Terrorists will find it harder (but
not impossible) to use a pocket knife to carry out their plan. But
should a terrorist manage to get one aboard, the rest of the (now
unarmed) passengers will have a harder time preventing the terrorist
from actually completing his deed. Further, a terrorist will know how
to use a sharp pencil as a weapon, and the average person will be at a
disadvantage in such an attack. Perhaps we should outlaw sharp pencils,
and only allow people to do their work using lipstick.

While I'm not advocating shootouts at thirty thousand feet, it's only
half in jest that I submit an alternate plan: everyone who boards an
aircraft is issued a gun, and if he hasn't used it by the end of the
flight, he has to explain why.

I have no problem with good people having weapons, and I think disarming
=all= people is more apt to disarm good people than bad people. This
tips the odds in favor of the bad, and I do =not= believe that this is
compensated for in this case by trusting in law enforcement.

> Would you suggest that after two white males rob a bank that we should be looking for "two humans?"

For the time that we are actively looking for the actual bank robbers,
we should be looking for people who match the description. However,
once they are caught (or no longer being sought in any given venue) we
should no longer harass folks who innocently resemble the robbers.

If we are just trying to prevent bank robbery in general, the fact that
two white males robbed a bank once is of little consequence. Detain
white males and the next robbery will be committed with a trained dog
and a hand grenade.

> The reaction to so called "profiling" is, for the most part, an emotional derivative of the civil rights movement in this country rather than a fundamental issue.

It is a reasonable reaction, considering the abuses of authority that
occured then, and are occuring even now. The DC TFR is an abuse of
authority which accomplishes nothing. Talk about profiling - the
attackers were giant jumbo jets, and it's the little mosquitos that are
kept away. AIRLINERS should be banned from DC, and all air transport
there should be by four seat single engine propeller planes weighing
less than 18,500 pounds. :)

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Doug Carter]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:29:13 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:
>
>
>>OK, presuming that TSA is ineffective then apparently OBL and Al Qaeda
>>have been, for the most part, neutered by their devastating losses in
>>the Mideast.
>
> well, flying 2 big planes into a skyscraper is only good for propaganda.
> horrible pictures for the media.

Exactly. The 9/11 attack will go down in history as one of the
century's greatest tactical blunders because of the massive and
effective counter attack against Al Qaeda and stimulus for security
improvements it triggered.

> what would you do if you _really_ want to cause severe damage? think about
> infrastructure! think about water, energy, internet, ...

Of course. The changes in TSA are trivial compared to what has changed
around the rest of the infrastructure.

[Doug Carter]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:40:52 GMT, Doug Carter wrote:
>
>
>>Would you
>>suggest that after two white males rob a bank that we should be looking
>>for "two humans?"
>
> Would you say that we should all watch out for white males because they are
> potential bank robbers?
>

We may be actually getting closer to the point. Try to keep in mind
that the objective of profiling in law enforcement is not to target a
particular group but rather to not waste time on low risk possibilities.

DHS and the FBI have lists of people who are known terrorists in this
country under false ID. Not looking for them seems silly.

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:53:38 -0500, Tom Fleischman wrote:

><snip>
>
>> This brings me to an idea: what about embarassing the screeners? Just put
>> some adult toys in your luggage. Are there some legal restrictions in the
>> US?
>>
>
>Yes, in fact there are. You and your baggage can be denied access to
>the aircraft if you are found in posession of what the screeners deem
>to be "obscene materials".

really?!?!

don't know how many kids are reading this group, so I don't want to become
more explicit here .... but: are you really SERIOUS about that? can you
point me to some information?

what is obscene material? is this regulated state by state? means: not OK
in Utah, but OK in California?

#m

--
<http://www.terranova.net/content/images/goering.jpg>

[Doug Carter]

Jose wrote:
> The whole point of profiling is to detain people
> based on surface similarities to the group you are targeting, hoping
> that you'll snag someone.

We may have a disconnect here. I think you are talking about one
possible action you might take based on a profile match. What I have
seen proposed is *not* asking the extra questions, taking a second look
at paperwork, etc. of those people who clearly *do not* match the profile.

Profiling does *not* mean arresting everyone in a given group (at least
in the USA).

> We ban pocket knives on airplanes. Terrorists will find it harder (but
> not impossible) to use a pocket knife to carry out their plan. ...
> ...Perhaps we should outlaw sharp pencils,
> and only allow people to do their work using lipstick.

Work quality might improve :) Keep in mind that banning sharp things
serves only to reduce collateral damage to the passengers. With the
replacement of cockpit doors and the change in pilot procedures, the
erstwhile terrorist can freely saw away at the cockpit door all day
long. The pilot will simply land the plane and let a SWAT team deal
with the problem.

We may lose a few passengers to sharp pencils but at least we keep the
airplane out of buildings.

> While I'm not advocating shootouts at thirty thousand feet, it's only
> half in jest that I submit an alternate plan: everyone who boards an
> aircraft is issued a gun, and if he hasn't used it by the end of the
> flight, he has to explain why.

I agree. Stats clearly show violent crime rates going down whenever gun
laws are relaxed. Shoot (pun intended), I don't think you would have to
issue guns; I'd be happy to bring my own :)

Sadly, this is impractical since jittery, untrained passengers would
probably spend more ammo shooting each other than the very occasional
terrorists anyway :(

> If we are just trying to prevent bank robbery in general, the fact that
> two white males robbed a bank once is of little consequence.

Except that in the case of terrorists we have long lists of them that
are in the country using fake ID. Seems like a good idea to look for
them. The point of profiling is not to arrest everyone in a given
profile but rather to not waste time on extra questions and paperwork
checks for those who do not meet the profile.

> The DC TFR is an abuse of authority which accomplishes nothing.

I don't like it either but if you have ever launched to the North from
DCA you can see that its not practical to shoot down an attacking
aircraft before it nails the capital or white house.

There does not seem to be a good solution for this. Airlines are
clearly the biggest tank of jet fuel but if a PC-12 loaded with TNT make
it to the Mall I don't think people would be happy with that either.

[Doug Carter]

Tom Fleischman wrote:
>>This brings me to an idea: what about embarassing the screeners? Just put
>>some adult toys in your luggage. Are there some legal restrictions in the
>>US?
>>
>
> Yes, in fact there are. You and your baggage can be denied access to
> the aircraft if you are found in posession of what the screeners deem
> to be "obscene materials".

I don't think so.

The biggest risk would be the TSA employee being so distracted by the
dildo that they missed the .357 underneath the crotchless panties.

[George Patterson]

Doug Carter wrote:
>
> I don't want to be an apologist for TSA or any other government agency
> but how do you explain the fact that despite numerous attempts the
> terrorists have been unable to kill anyone else in this country since 9/11?

Allah has not been willing.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Jose]

> We may have a disconnect here. I think you are talking about one possible action you might take based on a profile match. What I have seen proposed is *not* asking the extra questions, taking a second look at paperwork, etc. of those people who clearly *do not* match the profile.

What's the difference? In both cases, you are treating one group to
more harassment and inconvenience, based on a superficial resemblance to
the hate-club-of-the-week.

> Keep in mind that banning sharp things serves only to reduce collateral damage to the passengers.

Here we have a disconnect. I have never heard this as a stated reason,
nor is it a plausable reason. If a terrorist decides to crash the
airplane I'm flying in, I'm not sure what collateral damage to me will
result from my carrying a nail clipper.

> Sadly, this is impractical since jittery, untrained passengers would probably spend more ammo shooting each other than the very occasional terrorists anyway

Darwin. :)

> Except that in the case of terrorists we have long lists of them that are in the country using fake ID. Seems like a good idea to look for them.

Fine. Look for them. But that's different from filtering people as
they enter an airport.

> I don't like [the DC TFR] either but if you have ever launched to the North from DCA you can see that its not practical to shoot down an attacking aircraft before it nails the capital or white house.

So the solution is to 1: allow airliners, which can do huge amounts of
damage, to take off to the North, because, well, they are airlines.
And 2: to prohibit the little guys (who would have a hard time breaking
a window) from doing the same thing, because, well, they are little
guys. I think I get it.

> There does not seem to be a good solution for this.

Bingo. And where there is no solution, one should not try to solve it.
Accept the fact that there is no solution. Either that, or find a
number that's greater than six and less than four. Do that and I'll
accept any solution you provide.

> Airlines are clearly the biggest tank of jet fuel but if a PC-12 loaded with TNT make it to the Mall I don't think people would be happy with that either.

They wouldn't be happy with it making it to the mall either, and there
are many more malls than Malls.

The DC TFR is much like putting am eight foot door on the border between
the US and Mexico, and then insisting that a big lock on the door will
stop illegal immigration.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Doug Carter > posted:
> Jose wrote:
>> It is the nature of an open society that it is vulnerable. It
>> ceases to be an open society long before it ceases to be vulnerable.
>> Profiling is just one way this happens.
>
> I don't, for the most part disagree, but, consider this: Would you
> suggest that after two white males rob a bank that we should be
> looking for "two humans?" The reaction to so called "profiling" is,
> for the most part, an emotional derivative of the civil rights
> movement in this country rather than a fundamental issue.
>
The reaction to "so called 'profiling'..." is because of the way it is
implemented. Where its application has violated civil rights, it is an
issue, though not an emotional one. Does anyone recall how
"middle-eastern" people were suspected of the Oklahoma City Federal Bldg.
bombing? It's *not* OK to trample peoples' civil rights on the basis of
such erroneous and prejudicial notions.

Neil