Ouch

[zero2056]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/opinion/30dowd.html?_r=1&em

Damn... that's one helluva rip from the liberal biased NY Times.

I don't care who is in charge, how did this ass clown from Nigeria manage to get so "lucky" by that many morons not doing their job and letting him on the plane.

How about we approve a little racial profiling for 2010 at airport checks and stop checking Grandma's purse, and pull Osama aside instead to see if he has something suspicious in his turban.

And for the whiners out there concerned about civil liberties, I thought civil liberties ended where they started to infringe and endanger other peoples safety, happiness, and liberties (i.e. Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you from yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre).

[slam]

How about we approve a little racial profiling for 2010 at airport checks and stop checking Grandma's purse, and pull Osama aside instead to see if he has something suspicious in his turban.

racial profiling? isn't he black? what the hell does a turban have to do with it?

i agree they f'd up on this one. but i'm not sure why you think racial profiling would have fixed this. unless you mean that everyone who isn't white should endure further searches.

[mrjohnchimpo]

99 percent of terrorists are Muslim males of Middle Eastern decent. Searching them with greater frequency than an 80 year white grandmother or a Mexican family with 5 kids just to make liberals feel better about themselves is just good math.

[False Alarm]

you'd love if they shook down the mexicans too though just cuz.

[poofdogg]

99 percent of terrorists are Muslim males of Middle Eastern decent. Searching them with greater frequency than an 80 year white grandmother or a Mexican family with 5 kids just to make liberals feel better about themselves is just good math.

this guy wasnt Middle Eastern. he's in the 1% that you mention

[paul]

99 percent of terrorists are Muslim males of Middle Eastern decent. Searching them with greater frequency than an 80 year white grandmother or a Mexican family with 5 kids just to make liberals feel better about themselves is just good math.

Where does that statistic come from? If I recall correctly, there are quite a few American terrorism incidents that involve white male mid-western Christians. In fact, looking back over the last couple decades of terrorist acts, the common thread isn't ethnicity, it's a tendency of the perpetrators to be acting in the name of religion.

Which leads to the logical conclusion... Instead of racial profiling, how about religious profiling?

Maybe at the airport there should be two lines to get through security. One for rational thinkers who can behave themselves. This line would include quick metal detector scans, free coffee, and smiles from friendly agents.

The other line would be for individuals exhibiting antisocial behaviors including belief in invisible beings, the desire to tell everyone else that their philosophy is wrong, irrational obsessions with badly translated ancient texts, and other signs of being a "person of faith". The "people of faith" line would include strip searches, long delays, baton beatings (just in case), and detention at random. Attempting to enter the airport with dangerous materials, including bibles, qurans, and Dianetics books, would result in mandatory jail time.

Sounds like a fair and cost saving way to bust terrorists at the airport to me. Given historical analysis, should have 100% effectiveness too!

[mrjohnchimpo]

If I was in a people group that was causing issues, I would expect to be profiled. It all comes down to the fact that everybody should stop whining.

[mrjohnchimpo]

this guy wasnt Middle Eastern. he's in the 1% that you mention

that's true. there were tons and tons of warnings and signs though so the question now is how was he even allowed to fly? even his own father tried to warn people! :banghead:

[poofdogg]

that's true. there were tons and tons of warnings and signs though so the question now is how was he even allowed to fly? even his own father tried to warn people! :banghead:

I don't disagree with the sentiment that we seriously dropped the ball on this guy. He was clearly a nutcase with plans for damage. How did he get through? However, I don't see this case as one that pushes forward the idea of racial profiling. He doesn't even fit that mold.

[mrjohnchimpo]

ok, so then what would have caught this guy? everyone (well, most) on here don't want racial profiling, and they don't seem think that everyone should be checked. I wouldn't mind either one.

so if nothing is good enough, then what does the left want?

[paul]

ok, so then what would have caught this guy? everyone (well, most) on here don't want racial profiling, and they don't seem think that everyone should be checked. I wouldn't mind either one.


Racial profiling is a bad idea, for one thing, it doesn't agree with American concepts of justice and racial equality. Compromising those important values just because we can't think of anything better than picking on Muslims is unacceptable.

More than that, it's bad security policy. If we focus on checking people who look mid-eastern and Muslim at the airport, all a terrorist has to do to get through is look not mid-easter and not Muslim. Racial profiling creates a blind spot, allowing terrorists to assume non-profiled identities and walk right through security.

I'm fine with checking everyone, using technologies that are known to be effective. No reason everyone shouldn't go through a metal detector, we do that lots of other places too, like the courthouses here in Chicago. Bomb sniffing dogs, and newer bomb sniffing machines, seem like a good idea too. I'm also glad luggage gets x-rayed and checked. I'm not even that opposed to these body scanning machines, though I think they're an unnecessary expense. Taking our shoes off is stupid, and so is a lot of the other security theater that happens at checkpoints. At least what happens now complies with our basic principles of justice and equality, and still allows relatively timely travel through airports and access to cheap air travel.

How about his question... Is there really a problem? 9/11 was terrible, but that was the last serious domestic air travel terrorism incident. Neither the shoe bomber and this recent guy, let's call him the underwear bomber, did any significant damage to the plane they targeted. Both were neutralized in very effective ways by the passengers and crew of each flight. Both were handled in a civilized way by our justice system and received the punishments they deserved. What else do we want? People are going to try shit, no matter what we do and what we check for. Forcing terrorists to limit what they can take on flights to the point that they use ineffective shoe and underwear bombs and throwing them in jail when they're caught sounds fine to me. Also, the public is way more educated and aggressive about dealing with airline terrorism than before 9/11. I think that planes full of people ready to pounce on terrorists the first second they try some stupid shit is the best thing we'll every have going for us.

There's also the question of acceptable levels of risk. For me, the present situation, or even the pre-shoebomber situation, was completely acceptable. Air travel, even with the threat of terrorism, is far safer than many things people do every day, like driving on the highway or crossing the street where there's not a cross walk. While air travel terrorism is spectacular when it succeeds, making it look really bad, it's actually a very small threat to travelers. You're way more likely to die in a car crash on your way to the airport than on a plane at the hands of a terrorist. If we're to continue having cheap and readily available air travel, and not have everyone strip searched including body cavity checks, we're going to have to come to an understanding about what level or risk is acceptable. Perfection in stopping every idiot with bomb powder in their underpants is just not going to happen.

That said, there was a failure in our intelligence agencies with regards to the warning we got from the underwear bomber's father. It's really lame that we didn't get his name on the no-fly list. I'm sure all of those government IT systems totally suck though. That's more to blame on agency turf wars and lowest-bidder contract approval processes than anything else. Those who are blaming this on President Obama are shamelessly exploiting this incident for cynical political motives.

[mrjohnchimpo]

those are good points.

here's a good chart. The true odds of airborne terror:

http://gizmodo.com/5435954/the-true-odds-of-airborne-terror-chart

[slam]

I think that planes full of people ready to pounce on terrorists the first second they try some stupid shit is the best thing we'll every have going for us.

yeah, the thing about 9/11 is, it will work exactly once. hell, even the fourth plane that day realized what was going on and took their own plane down rather than have it used as a weapon.

i think bruce schneier said it best: "Only two things have made flying safer [since 9/11]: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers."

i'm ok with taking my shoes off before a flight (whatever, no big deal). hell, i'd be ok with those crazy invasive terrahertz scanners if they decided it's best. but it's all an expense that will only serve to put people's minds at ease.

[zero2056]

Where does that statistic come from? If I recall correctly, there are quite a few American terrorism incidents that involve white male mid-western Christians. In fact, looking back over the last couple decades of terrorist acts, the common thread isn't ethnicity, it's a tendency of the perpetrators to be acting in the name of religion.

Which leads to the logical conclusion... Instead of racial profiling, how about religious profiling?

Maybe at the airport there should be two lines to get through security. One for rational thinkers who can behave themselves. This line would include quick metal detector scans, free coffee, and smiles from friendly agents.

The other line would be for individuals exhibiting antisocial behaviors including belief in invisible beings, the desire to tell everyone else that their philosophy is wrong, irrational obsessions with badly translated ancient texts, and other signs of being a "person of faith". The "people of faith" line would include strip searches, long delays, baton beatings (just in case), and detention at random. Attempting to enter the airport with dangerous materials, including bibles, qurans, and Dianetics books, would result in mandatory jail time.

Sounds like a fair and cost saving way to bust terrorists at the airport to me. Given historical analysis, should have 100% effectiveness too!


Paul for President!

I'd vote for you.

[zero2056]

ok, so then what would have caught this guy? everyone (well, most) on here don't want racial profiling, and they don't seem think that everyone should be checked. I wouldn't mind either one.

so if nothing is good enough, then what does the left want?

Racial profiling, cultural profiling, call it whatever the hell you want... sign me up for some of that.

It already occurs (off the record), let's off the record just make it more frequent!

I've been searched on two of the past three air trips I've taken (Destination: Rome, Italy; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Las Vegas, USA). I also am approached by Hispanics who try to strike up a conversation (I have a dark complexion and dark hair for a mid-west whitey), especially if inspecting a jobsite or out and about with the wife (hispanic). Maybe there is a correlation between the two.

Anyway, the extent of a "search" is to go through your bags in more detail, have the wand waved between your legs, and then you're sent on your way.

If that helps keep a plane-ful of people from getting blown up by a disgruntled whatever, then go for it. It's not infringing on any right I haven't already waived by purchasing a plane ticket.